YouTuber Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Hudon-Huneault remained defiant as the week ended, posting a new video on Thursday then going live on Friday to address his recent lawsuit by Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova.
Hudon-Huneault refused to say the name of Cordova’s attorney, that Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq., during both the produced video and the livestream, but did level criticism at Newman while questioning the nature of the lawsuit.
The Canadian YouTuber said that Newman was a clout chaser who was only doing the lawsuits to establish himself on YouTube. He claimed that Newman was willing to take a financial loss and do legal work for those who could not afford his services because of it.
Using Cordova as an example, he said that Cordova has admitted to being “flat broke” over the past year and had to sell his condominium to avoid getting a job. He brought up the unsuccessful GoFundMe Cordova created just to raise filing fees in one of the lawsuits and noted that Newman had to be working on contingency because there was no way Cordova could otherwise afford his services.
Speaking of his own legal defense, Hudon-Huneault revealed that he had already spent around $12,000.00 in Canadian dollars in legal services between two on-going legal matters between one the lawsuit with Cordova and legal troubles on another of his channels.
Hudon-Huneault revealed that he had paid attorney Patrick J. D’Arcy $2,815.26.00 for consultation work, who attempted to file a “friend of the court” brief in the Cordova lawsuit before Hudon-Huneault was even served with the case. At the time of the attempted filing, D’Arcy did not disclose that he had been paid by Hudon-Huneault.
The Law Offices of Stephen Vondran now represent Hudon-Huneault in the lawsuit, with the YouTuber claiming that he’s paid sums of $2,216.16 and $7,201.30 to the office between the two on-going legal matters.
Hudon-Huneault claimed innocence in the Cordova case but admitted to removing 1,700 videos pre-emptively in order to stop others from suing him for his work. He implied that Newman was targeting him by soliciting other clients and that he scrubbed his website of any possibly incriminating material to prevent “going bankrupt” by having to defend himself from multiple lawsuits.
The YouTuber also implied that he had used the New York address in his DMCA claims as he knew that no attorney would ever pick up the lawsuit on behalf of Cordova and was protecting himself from Cordova using that information for nefarious purposes.
Hudon-Huneault pledged that he would fight the lawsuit to the very end and would never settle, despite Vondran’s reputation for quickly getting clients out of legal issues. He then put out the collection plate and asked for direct donations to his PayPal account from his fans, pledging full transparency for the use of the donations.
On Friday’s livestream, Hudon-Huneault thanked his fans for their extensive contributions without stating how much he had collected overnight. He continued to avoid talking about attorney Newman, and belittled Cordova in passing.
Hudon-Huneault again pledged to fight the charges “to the very end.”
When approached, Attorney Newman responded to Hudon-Huneault’s produced video with a statement to ReallyCoolNews:
“Mr. Huneault’s latest video is remarkable, not for its legal substance, but for the spectacle of e-begging dressed up as defiance. He spends more time rattling a digital tip jar than addressing the fact that his own uploads contain four-to-six-minute stretches of my client’s work played straight through without commentary. He admits he deleted 1,700 videos because fighting even a single lawsuit would be ruinously expensive yet now asks his followers to bankroll a hopeless defense. The irony is staggering. He accuses me of taking cases for clout while he pleads for cash on YouTube. This is not a free-speech crusade; it’s a monetization scheme built on infringement.”
Attorney Newman has tentatively agreed to appear on the ReallyCoolNews scheduled marathon later today.
JF his own uploads contain four-to-six-minute stretches of my client’s work played straight through without commentary.
He means the video tape gathered for news purposes which is not creative work. All of which has no real protection copyright protection as it involves others such as a bystander or a police officer. Neither can be copyrighted. Also as it was only registered 2 years after publishing it, there is little damage done in the last, what? 60 days?
JF This is not a free-speech crusade; it’s a monetization scheme built on infringement.”
Maya Angelou: ‘When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.’
I could not have written that any better. Listen and believe, :,,,this case is not a free-speech crusade; it’s a monetization scheme built on infringement.”
Dig in boys, this is going to be a very short fight before it is dismissed for so many reasons, not the least of which starts with, there is no claim of copyrighted material being infringed. It is not some work of art, or some creative endeavour. This is a video of self proclaimed news gathering. Which has the lowest level of protection. When the video in question was registered, it was taken down almost immediately. See your honor, the good faith we have shown this plaintiff. we took him at his word when he registered his work. Not to mention the double jeopardy from the DMC … what? Yes, they ran the video through YT DMC evaluating, agreeing to sue within 10 days, Not 10 years. Or in this case 2 years. But that doesn’t count, we can sue as long as we want to. Cept you are suing in Northern cali based on the YT agreement which limited the suit to 10 days.
Speaking of YT, since all this action occurred on YT wouldn’t they be a needed party?
motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party
Rule 12(b)(7)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a defendant to argue that a lawsuit should not proceed because an indispensable party has not been joined.
After all, YT was where the video was published. was the first to review the video and was the first to dismiss the copyright claim.
Opps
A real copyright lawyer would know that… should have known that? Oh why bother. They just didn’t in their race to file the most dismissable case since… oh since chilli filed his case after?