The Jeremy Hales lawsuit is actually a pair of federal cases the YouTuber filed in the Northern District of Florida against neighbors Lynette Preston and John Cook, along with other online critics, alleging a coordinated defamation and harassment campaign that began on Mother’s Day 2023. One case is currently stayed by Preston’s bankruptcy. In the other, a magistrate judge has recommended dismissing all claims with prejudice as frivolous. Both remain open as of mid-2026.
What Hales Says Started the Dispute
Hales runs the YouTube channel “What the Hale$,” which has more than 700,000 subscribers. He lives in Otter Creek, a small community in Levy County, Florida. According to his court filings, signs were placed near his property on Mother’s Day 2023 bearing accusations including “Jeremy Hales Raped my Daughter,” “Jeremy Hales OHIO Rapist,” and “No Child rapists in Levy Co!”1Midpage. Hales v. Preston He alleges Alexis Preston made and posted the signs as part of what he calls a “coordinated and extensive campaign” of harassment on and offline.2CaseMine. Hales v. Preston
What the Defense Says
Attorney Bruce Matzkin, who represents Preston and Cook, has publicly called the signs a “MacGuffin” and said he has a handwriting expert ready to testify that Hales wrote the signs himself to manufacture a legal claim.3Richard Luthmann, Substack. YouTube Stars Legal Showdown: Hales v. Preston No police report or criminal investigation identifying who placed the signs appears in the public record.
Matzkin has also pointed to Hales’s own deposition. According to Matzkin, Hales could not identify any concrete financial harm to his channel or online business from the defendants’ alleged conduct, and he refused to answer questions about the merits of his claims.4Michael Volpe, Substack. An Interview With Bruce Matzkin Matzkin has said he plans to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offers of judgment to shift costs to Hales if the case continues.
The First Federal Case
Hales v. Preston, Case No. 1:24-cv-00045, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Magistrate Judge Zachary C. Bolitho recommended denial, and District Judge Allen C. Winsor adopted that recommendation in September 2024, allowing the case to proceed.5CourtListener. Hales v. Preston, 1:24-cv-000456Justia. Hales v. Preston, Filing 23
The case has since been stayed. Lynette Preston filed for bankruptcy (Case No. 1:25-bk-10173), which triggered an automatic stay. Hales then opened an adversary proceeding (1:26-ap-01001) in bankruptcy court on February 25, 2026, asking that any debt owed to him be ruled nondischargeable as a willful and malicious injury. A motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding is set for hearing on August 18, 2026.7PACER Monitor. Hales v. Preston, Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding
The Second Federal Case
In February 2025, Hales and an entity called Elephant Shoe, LLC filed a broader second suit, Hales v. Preston, Case No. 1:25-cv-00058, in the same court.8CourtListener. Hales v. Preston, 1:25-cv-00058 District Judge Robert Lewis Hinkle is presiding, with Magistrate Judge Bolitho handling pretrial matters. The complaint originally named ten defendants and has been amended multiple times. Hales’s attorney, Randall Shochet, filed the first amended complaint in late April 2025.9PACER Monitor. Hales v. Preston, First Amended Complaint
The amended complaint contains sixteen counts, including defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, civil conspiracy, malicious prosecution, statutory sexual cyberharassment under Florida law, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising under the federal Lanham Act.10Midpage. Hales v. Preston, Substitution Order
Magistrate Judge Bolitho has recommended dismissing the second case with prejudice. He concluded that the claims lacked merit, that Hales failed to provide evidence supporting the conspiracy and tortious interference allegations, and that the theory rested largely on social media posts rather than any plausible agreement to engage in unlawful conduct. Bolitho also recommended ordering Hales to pay the legal fees of defendant Dave Helm, calling the suit frivolous.11Michael Volpe, Substack. The Hales Crew Copes With Being Humiliated The recommendation is pending before Judge Hinkle. Hales has publicly stated that the second case was “just the beginning” and that he intends to file more.
Defendants Cook and Preston, appearing without lawyers, asked the court to appoint counsel. In April 2025, Magistrate Judge Bolitho denied the request in part, noting the court cannot compel an attorney to take a civil case, but ordered the Clerk of Court to solicit a volunteer attorney through the district’s bar.12U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida. Order on Motions for Court-Appointed Counsel
Sanctions and the Recusal Fight
In April 2025, Magistrate Judge Bolitho sanctioned Shochet $4,000 for two filings he found frivolous, one of which contained a false claim that Shochet had been added as a co-defendant to a countersuit. Bolitho expressed “overwhelming frustration and exasperation” at the docket’s volume, which he attributed largely to Shochet.13Michael Volpe, Substack. Hales Crew Cheer More Frivolous Filings Hales reportedly called the penalty “money well spent.”
Hales then moved to disqualify Bolitho from both federal cases, alleging bias based on the magistrate’s rulings and on-the-record comments. In March 2026, Judge Hinkle denied the recusal motion in the second case, ruling that disagreement with rulings is not a ground for disqualification and that Hales had not alleged facts suggesting bias from an extrajudicial source.14Scribd. Hales v. Preston, Order Denying Recusal
The State-Court Stalking Injunction Matter
Separate from the civil suits, Hales has faced allegations of violating a stalking injunction and a temporary injunction in state court. In April 2024, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued Executive Order 24-68 after the state attorney for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Brian S. Kramer, disqualified himself due to a conflict of interest. The order assigned William M. Gladson, State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, to investigate and prosecute for one year.15Florida Governor’s Office. Executive Order 24-68 The executive order did not detail the alleged violations, and no public update on the prosecution’s outcome has been identified.
The YouTube Angle
The dispute is unusual for how thoroughly it has played out on YouTube. Hales’s channel has covered every stage of the litigation for its audience. Matzkin has argued the suits are themselves the content, saying, “Hales isn’t engaging in journalism. He’s harassing my clients and monetizing it under the guise of free speech.”3Richard Luthmann, Substack. YouTube Stars Legal Showdown: Hales v. Preston
Where Things Stand
Both federal cases remain open. The first is stayed pending the Preston bankruptcy, with the related adversary proceeding heading to an August 2026 motion hearing.7PACER Monitor. Hales v. Preston, Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding The second saw its most recent docket activity on June 15, 2026, and awaits Judge Hinkle’s decision on whether to adopt the magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss with prejudice and shift fees.8CourtListener. Hales v. Preston, 1:25-cv-00058 Whether Hales files the additional lawsuits he has publicly promised is the other open question.