The first skirmish was held in the on-going online war between Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Huneault and Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova, represented by Steven C. Vondran and that Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq., respectfully, was held on Monday as Vondran filed a motion to dismiss the ongoing federal lawsuit.
That motion to dismiss got off to a troubling start as it initially only covered Huneault and not his wife, co-defendant Nneka Ohiri. Attorney Newman pounced on this, filing a motion to hold Ohiri in default almost immediately after Vondran’s initial filing.
According to Huneault in a livestream held later in the day, Newman had agreed to withdraw the motion for default after Vondran filed an updated motion to dismiss but had yet to do so at press time.
As is, the new motion calls for a hearing on November 18, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to hear the motion to dismiss the complaint.
The complaint is seeking a complete dismissal of the claims against Huneault and Ohiri based on the grounds that Newman failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Vondran is seeking attorney’s fees and reimbursement of the costs that Huneault incurred defending himself in the case.
As Huneault made clear in his livestream Wednesday night, this is just the first skirmish in a longer war. According to Huneault, Newman is set to file an amended complaint in the near future as a response to the motion to dismiss, which will result in a second motion to dismiss.
Key takeaways to follow from Wednesday’s filing include the fact that even in the corrected version of the filing, Ohiri is barely mentioned. This is troubling as Ohiri, not Huneault, owns the AdSense account associated with the Frauditor Troll YouTube channel. While there are statements and defense of Huneault, the filing seems to set up a scenario where the case against Huneault could be dropped, leaving Ohiri on the hook for the rest of the lawsuit.
While it contains some iffy logic, relying heavily on a “parody” defense to excuse the use of Cordova’s material, for example, the key takeaway from the document is their strong statement that Huneault’s videos did not cause financial damage to Cordova or a viable market replacement for Cordova’s works.
Putting aside the amateurish “market research” done by Huneault’s over the weekend polling of his audience, included as an exhibit in the filing, Cordova and Newman may face challenges in establishing a monetary value of the damages they’re seeking. It’s hard to see a scenario where damages awarded to Cordova would total more than the tens of thousands of dollars.
More interesting is the context of the lawsuit in the world where it is playing out. Both sides see themselves as the “hero” of the story. Cordova portrays himself as a copyright holder who is defending his work against the reuse for profit by someone who has attempted to establish a market substitute for the original product.
Huneault has billed himself (with Ohiri a minor player in the saga) as a man of the people, an all-American type (despite Huneault being Canadian), who is standing up for the “little guy” who wants to poke fun at the established copyright creator without being sued into oblivion.
Both sides have real points and real issues that the creators of the DMCA never fully decided how to handle, relying on a vague “fair use” idea – which is not codified into law – to handle disputes.
There also seems to be established guidelines on YouTube that protect works from major corporations from use of copyrighted material. Play more than a few seconds of an Eagles song, for example, and feel the wrath of Don Henley and his record label in court.
Sing a parody of a popular song on a livestream and watch as your monetization is suddenly “shared” with multiple entities claiming legal rights over your work as it’s derivative content from the original work.
YouTube does not offer the same protections to smaller content creators on either side and has made its dispute policy overly vague, and it is nearly impossible to find a remedy that is fair to either side in the dispute.
Plus, the growing rise of AI generated channels that openly repurpose content from all creators without attribution should strike fear in both sides, as AI channels are almost impossible to fight, often generate ten or even hundreds of times the views of the original content, and keep the profit for themselves.
Huneault has vowed that he will never settle this case and is looking for a definitive victory over Cordova. While Cordova, through Newman, is more amenable towards resolution, this was, again, the first skirmish in a greater war.
This is an on-going news story.
Correction: A previous version of this story indicated that Nneka Ohiri filed the DMCA counterclaims and took responsibility for the channel in those claims. This was incorrect. Ohiri was actually revealed to be the owner of the AdSense account associated with the Frauditor Troll YouTube channel. We apologize for the error on our part.
Cordova v. Huneault – 29 – Motion to Dismiss Cordova v. Huneault – 29-1 – Declaration Cordova v. Huneault – 29-2 – Exhibit Cordova v. Huneault – 29-3 – Proposed Order Cordova v. Huneault – 30 – Request for Default Cordova v. Huneault – 30-1 – Declaration in Support of Request for Default Cordova v. Huneault – 30-2 – Proposed Certificate of Default Cordova v. Huneault – 31 – Certificate of Service Cordova v. Huneault – 33 – Corrected Motion to Dismiss Cordova v. Huneault – 33-1 – Declaration Cordova v. Huneault – 33-2 – Exhibit Cordova v. Huneault – 33-3 – Proposed Order Cordova v. Huneault – 34 – Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction (Huneault)
JF That motion to dismiss got off to a troubling start as it initially only covered Huneault and not his wife, co-defendant Nneka Ohiri. Attorney Newman pounced on this, filing a motion to hold Ohiri in default almost immediately after Vondran’s initial filing.
Ya that is a baby move. It was rather whiny of him to do so. They would merely correct what amounts to be a typo. You tell the other lawyer he made an error and let him correct it. Otherwise, they then go to court and one lawyer says to the judge opps. And the judge then let him refile it with both names. Doing this sort of baby move, shows this case has no legs. They are looking for any means to hurt the other guy, Not looking to win on the merits. Course we all know this case, has no merits. You do this type of thing once and when the shoe is on the other foot, you can be sure they will object.
JF Newman is set to file an amended complaint in the near future as a response to the motion to dismiss, which will result in a second motion to dismiss.
That would be his third time filing a new complaint? Gee, isn’t that like something chilli would do. Over and over again, refiling his complaint. Hoping against hope that something will stick.
JF Ohiri is barely mentioned. This is troubling as Ohiri, not Huneault, took full responsibility for the channel in the DMCA counter claim. While there are statements and defense of Huneault, the filing seems to set up a scenario where the case against Huneault could be dropped, leaving Ohiri on the hook for the rest of the lawsuit.
DMCA counter claim has no barring in this court case. And if they dismissed the claims again the husband, the wife would walk anyways. He says, he did this, he did that. They dismiss against him, they have only her? Err, no, They have him as well, only not as defendant but as a witness to the whole thing. And the damages would be based on what she did, where he is saying I did it. But this is a great idea, worthy of chilli. I say they should go for it. I would love to see the judge read that motion… LOL and the counter dismissal.
JF Cordova and Newman may face challenges in establishing a monetary value of the damages they’re seeking. It’s hard to see a scenario where damages awarded to Cordova would total more than the tens of thousands of dollars.
Thousands? LOL no,
First of all, the video was registered for like a week before it was taken down by FT so how much damage do they get from that? Not the whole of the tw plus years. All that time does not count. Only once it was registered, The big claim for attorney fees is an option to be award if the judge thinks so.
They have to show damages, which FT addressed in show his audience is not DMA’s audience. No overlap means not disminisment. Not to be a killjoy, but they have to prove infringement , hurdle, they clearly are not ready to do with a new complaint to be refiled.
Even if they could, they cannot, but even if they could. How much $$ do you think FT earned in the 2 weeks between when the video was registered and when it was taken down? Hundreds of dollars? Millions of dollars? How about 10$ or less.
So they might award the whole 10$ and lawyers costs of say 1$. Basically legal go away money only from the judge.
The whole of this lolsuit was the hope that FT would not respond and they would win their case by default. The problem was he did respond. The issue is further complicated in the simple fact, there is no case to be had.
This case is a loser. The problem is, FT is out to make an example of DMA and wants $$$$ as payback for his lawyer costs. In this type of case, you can get that early on. DMA is selling his condo. A large chunk of that change might be sent to FT to make this go away,
And for the next few years people in this community will heard the name of DMA and laugh at his lolsuit. As they do now at chilli and his LOLsuit.
Oh and did you post these legal documents in Merb’s discord. I want to see his response…
Actually, i already know what he will do. Considering how much he supported DMA the last round. I am waiting for his mea culpa.
Nov 18 could be a fun day for someone 😀
@TheDMCALawyer
3 hours ago
Jesus, how can one individual be so stupid? Do you get anything right? Ever? King of the Dummies continues to spout completely wrong law.
My reply
Now, now, there is no need for you to be so hard on yourself. I know, you missed the day in law school when they taught law so you really would not know any of this. But the other lawyer, reading your comments and the comments on YT etc can see the legal community thinks you are a scammer on the grift, not to mention helping serving of self hatred. So the other guy, says to himself, I just have to see just how bad this so called lawyer is. So what’s the easiest way to set you up? He “forgets” to put in the wife’s name. Opps mea culpa. You fall for the bait and file for default. Now we know how bad you are and how weak your case is. For those who don’t know, this happens more often then you would image, typos wrong names, wrong dates etc. It happens. Normally, a good lawyer, and not this clown, would phone, email or contact the other guy and ask him, did you really mean to not file for the wife? The other lawyers looks, goes opps and re-files. But not here. So DMA files for default. The other guy sees this, and see his “mistake” and all he has to do is refile with the court a motion to accept a correction. Since no material damage is in evidence, the judge again would mostly rubber stamp such a request. Just like if FT lawyer had asked for an extension of time. The courts are usually very forgiving on such matters and routinely grant such a request.
However, such a request would be a waste of the courts time. Something a real lawyer would know. This is why they don’t play this sort of stupidities. It tells the other guy just how bad they are, how inexperienced and naive they are to the whole lawsuit thing. None of which you need to know when filing a lolsuit. I warned you that the honeymoon period was timing out. But you did not listen. Now… well now there is no cost free way to getting out of this
But wait, it gets worse, third time? Is that your legal philosophy, third time’s the charm? Did you study under professor chilli?
Strike one, you filed this lolsuit to start
Strike two, you fell for this simple trap a first year law student would avoid. (Except your case is so weak and you are so desperate for a win, any win.)
Strike three, your third refiling?
OMG how incompetent can you get?
Clearly we have not reached the bottom of that well
But wait, there’s more!
Your best buddy, turned out to be a fair weather friend. Merb was all hot and bothered crawling up your… He did videos on how great you are and how good your filing was.
Except now?
He hardly knows you. Does not like you. Does not practice this sort of law so he is unclear on the merits.
Oops
Ouch, that gotta hurt.
Your best bud, just dumped you like a load in the porcelain cell.
But wait, there is more.
Merb predicted there would be a settlement. He was half right. He thinks DMA will be collecting something! Well, there will be money exchanged. The settlement will be when DMA agrees to pay FT for wasting his time out of the proceeds of his sale of the condo. Don’t worry, he will recover when DMA gets a real lawyer and sues you for malpractice.
See what you started? You thought it would be over and done with. Fast cash and you are on your way to internet fame. Sadly, you have more cases then you can handle and almost more then you can imagine. Suing people for giving a standard reply? Even a first year law student would not make that mistake. That’s in the realm of sovcits and paper terrorism… designed to scare and intimidate… Oh wait. Nope, i was wrong, that was exactly what you intended to do. Scare people into settlements. Sadly. Most people do not scare and they do not settle. They fight. You think a lawyer is going to run away because some clown who clearly does not know what he is doing. Has never been in a court except twice and losing both times. And he thinks he can sue over a standard reply to a lawsuit. You think judges are that dumb? They will bounce your cases out so fast and order you to pay damages. Now that is going to be fun.
Just remember as you write the cheque, the laughing you are hearing is me saying “I told you so!”
So here you are. You got nowhere to go. No where to run. And your only friend is an AI bot to help you write your motions?
You are in serious trouble. Your clients are all the worse for having agree to let you represent them. Your motions are stuff first year law students know not to do. Anyone remember the failed motion to make FT keep up all 1500 videos that he had taken down, when merely filing on one?
Or when Darcy wrote his Amicus? The one where the judge knew Darcy’s middle name even though he does not use it professionally. Just an aside, remember when your mom would call you by your full name? You knew you were in trouble. Same here. The judge knew who Darcy was/is and warned him she needed no help of his to know the law and the person filing the lolsuit. She was legally telling Darcy to not make her job harder and she knows the laws.
Problem is, you missed all that. Opps.
What you don’t know, clearly will hurt you.
As for me, Your friendly neighborhood troll, glad I could come in and explain things to you. Show you around. I know you are so unfamiliar with this thing called law. Glad to help educate you in these matters.
Need anything else explained. Want me to show you any other aspect of law that a first year law student should know, just ask! I am your guy. I am willing to devote time to show you what you did wrong, hence why these letters are so long. You make so many mistakes. I am here to back you and tell you where you fell into tFT lawyer’s trap. Where you fell into Irish’s trap. Just generally where you messed up, over and over again.
In short, I am here for you randy, the pro boner from bang kok. Always ready to step in and correct your errors. Show you the way. Make light out of the darkness in your mind. Explain even the simplest legal principles that we would expect a first year law student by the end of September to know, respect and incorporate in their pleadings. But hey, being special needs is still being special.