Attorney Patrick J. D’Arcy continued his attempts to file an Amicus Curiae brief in the case of Christopher J. Cordova (Denver Metro Audits) vs. Jonathan Huneault (Frauditor Troll) continued on Tuesday as D’Arcy filed a response to that Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq., attempts to squash his motion before ultimately being shut down by the Judge in the case.
D’Arcy’s second motion essentially took Newman to task for a number of reasons, explaining that Newman did not cite the authority under local rule 7-10 which states: “Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned Judge, a party may file an ex parte motion, that is, a motion filed without notice to opposing party, only if a statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or Standing Order authorizes ex parte filing. The motion must include a citation to the statute, rule, or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought.”
The California based YouTuber and Attorney then stated that Newman did not provide a supporting declaration that contained facts based on personal knowledge or exigent circumstances or irreparable harm.
Further, Newman didn’t contact D’Arcy at all regarding notice or stipulations that could be filed before filing his motion to quash. D’Arcy goes on to further concentrate that Newman is in the wrong for trying to quash said motion as he has no grounds for it as D’Arcy doesn’t need to be a “disinterested” party to file such a brief and there are no legal grounds to strike the brief itself.
The rest of the motion lays out that the original motion to file an Amicus Curiae brief was procedurally proper, brings D’Arcy’s insights into what he says are “highly improper” pretrial publicity, witness intimidation and tainting of a possible jury pool.
D’Arcy also contends that he did not intend to threaten Newman when he vowed to interfere with future court cases, fund his enemies and cost great financial damage to Newman. He also denies boasting about spending $24,000.00 in work time spent on preparing his original brief as his mention was not a boast but establishing his devotion to the matter.
Finally, D’Arcy, despite not representing anyone officially involved in the lawsuit, cited that he did not publicize his motion as, “D’Arcy instructed his clients not to do videos about the Motion.”
D’Arcy’s filing was for naught as United States Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ignored both Newman’s motion to quash and D’Arcy’s response, denying his original motion for leave to file an amicus brief.
She wrote: “The Court denies Mr. D’Arcy’s request for leave to file an amicus brief in this action. The proposed brief purports to share information regarding alleged unprofessional behavior by plaintiff’s attorney, Randall S. Newman—information that appears to have no bearing on the merits of this copyright infringement action. Dkt. No. 16. In any event, there is nothing in the proposed brief that draws the Court’s attention to any pertinent law or matter that would otherwise escape the Court’s consideration, or that would “assist” the Court in any respect. The proposed brief also purports to seek interim injunctive relief on behalf of the defendant in this action. Id. However, Mr. D’Arcy has not noticed an appearance on behalf of the defendant, and, as noted above, the defendant has not even appeared in the action.
In short, there is no basis in fact or law for Mr. D’Arcy’s request for leave to file anything in this action, including an amicus brief. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to remove Mr. D’Arcy as amicus from this docket.
Mr. Cordova’s motion to strike is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.”
It’s unclear where Attorney D’Arcy will go from here or if he’ll continue his pledge to interfere with Attorney Newman’s cases to cause him great financial damage. Newman has multiple other cases available featuring the men D’Arcy apparently views as “clients.”
Newman, for his part, released a new video on Wednesday mocking D’Arcy and accusing him of altering a quote from a transcript that he then presented to the court. It is unclear if he has the ability to follow through with a request for sanctions on D’Arcy.
D’Arcy has yet to release a public statement on the setback.
