That Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq., saw developments in two of his multiple on-going lawsuits when “Superstar” attorney Steven Vondran replied to the question of jurisdiction in the on-going Helping Hands for Dignity v. Gurka case and a joint case management statement was filed in Executive Lens LLC v. Reed.
Starting with the Gurka case. Gurka is YouTuber Anthony “BlackHartKnight” Gurka, who is being sued by YouTuber and sometimes advocate for the homeless Regan Benson for allegedly using her YouTube videos without her permission and the alleged misrepresentation of copyright claims made in the DCMA counter notification process.
There was a question from Judge William H. Orrick over if he had jurisdiction over the lawsuit at the case management conference earlier in the month as the plaintiff lives in Denver and the defendant lives in Florida with the case being tried in California.
Newman had already briefed the court, arguing against jurisdiction being granted in Florida as Gurka had not challenged jurisdiction in his first responsive pleading the case. He claimed that Vondran asserted affirmative defenses and participated in the filing of Joint Case Management Statement without protest over the jurisdiction.
He also argued that because there is no known address for Gurka, and the address listed in his DMCA counterclaims leads to a property that burnt down years ago, the proper venue was established as part of YouTube’s DMCA process, which would land the case in the Northern District of California.
Vondran’s response argued that the submission of a DMCA Counter notice did not count in order to establish jurisdiction in California. He also forgives his client for using a false address in the DMCA Counter Notification as Cordova is allegedly known to have “doxed” people in the past.
He ends with the summation: “Plaintiff has identified no California‑directed conduct by Defendant, no specific consent to California, and no sufficient minimum contacts, and no legally cognizable basis for asserting jurisdiction. They only ask this court to make new law based on a novel legal theory without precedent to support their theory. Because constitutional due process is not satisfied, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction, and dismissal of this action is required.”
The second case saw Newman come together with attorney Robert Alan Reed to file a joint case management statement in the on-going lawsuit against Reed and YouTuber Frauditor Roundup by Denver based YouTuber Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova.
Attorney Reed is being sued for filing DMCA Counter Notices on behalf of Frauditor Roundup, taking full responsibility for Roundup’s content, including those works that infringed on Cordova’s copyright.
This came as part of a service Reed used to provide where YouTubers could use the address of his office to file their DMCA counter notices if they were afraid of doxing if they shared their real addresses as part of the legal documents.
Reed has since ended the service and closed his practice.
Both sides agree that the outstanding legal issues are:
Whether the Frauditor Roundup channel’s use of Plaintiff’s copyrighted video content constitutes fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107.
Whether Defendants’ DMCA counter-notifications contained material misrepresentations in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).
Whether Reed’s operation of a counter-mill was a violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(f) and (g).
Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages, injunctive relief, or attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act or the DMCA.
Whether Google (as proprietor of YouTube) is the appropriate party for Plaintiff’s seeking of declaratory and/or injunctive relief under the Code.
Both sides have agreed to a one day bench trial in March 2027.
“John Doe” defendant Frauditor Roundup has not been served in the matter as of yet and did not take part in the joint statement.
Randy. the pro boner from bankok, left his hate rally to find out that the day he missed in law school still count. That arguing jurisdiction based on AI or sovcit videos do not usually go over very well with judges and other lawyers. So far, the only reason for a lolsuit in California is that someone, I don’t want to say who, can only practise in Cali of New York. Since New York has case law opposing this sort of Lolsuit, it could only be served in Cali!
Yet, now that he has to fight cases based on law and not his normal one sided youtube screal and screeching suddenly the bug has hit the the windshield.
Splat.
The free legal service offered in Cali, won’t be so free in Denver or Florida. If the judge dismisses the case… when he dismisses the case… you can expect the whole lolsuit thing to just go away. As all frauditor lolsuits, they are merely hot wind from the nether end vomited out the mouth of a racist looking for YT fame in all the wrong places.
NB “Screal” is a Scottish term that means to scream or screech.
@TheDMCALawyer
2 hours ago
Nothing like Vondran arguing Personal Jurisdiction when the issue was venue. lol
https://legalclarity.org/venue-vs-jurisdiction-key-differences-and-legal-implications/
Interaction Between Venue and Jurisdiction
While venue and jurisdiction are distinct legal concepts, they often intersect in ways that can complicate legal proceedings. A court must have both proper jurisdiction and venue to hear a case, and errors in either can result in procedural challenges. For example, a court may have jurisdiction over a case but lack proper venue, requiring the case to be transferred or dismissed. Conversely, a case filed in the correct venue may still be dismissed if the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties.
In cases involving multiple defendants or multi-state disputes, courts must determine whether they have personal jurisdiction over all defendants and whether the chosen venue is appropriate for the entire case. This requires an analysis of the defendants’ connections to the forum state and the location of key events or evidence.
Federal courts face unique challenges in balancing venue and jurisdiction due to the interplay between state and federal laws. Under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a), a federal court lacking proper venue may transfer a case to a district where venue is proper, provided the court has jurisdiction. However, if jurisdiction is also lacking, the case may be dismissed entirely. This underscores the importance of carefully evaluating both venue and jurisdiction before filing a case.
The doctrine of pendent jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear state law claims closely related to federal claims within the same case, provided the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims. However, this can create venue complications if the state law claims involve parties or events outside the federal court’s district. Courts must balance judicial efficiency and fairness in deciding whether to exercise pendent jurisdiction or require the state law claims to be litigated separately in a different venue.
end
I am torn between showing this idiot how to be a lawyer and just making fun of all the many errors he keeps making in public.
The real lawyers are tearing him apart in court, so i will just settle making him look the fool in public.