YouTuber Dave “Doctor Dave” Coulter made headlines again on Thursday as his actions involving a secret recording of That Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman were mentioned in a filing in the on-going Executive Lens LLC v. Rapkin lawsuit.
Attorney Newman is representing Executive Lens LLC, which is owned by Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova, in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Lee Rapkin, a Canadian lawyer who filed responses to DMCA takedowns on the behalf of the YouTuber only known as “The Exposer.”
The Exposer and Rapkin have long been rumored to be in some sort of relationship as photos striking a resemblance to the Exposer have shown up on her social media pages. Rapkin has also claimed that an unknown entity filed the DMCA responses using her account.
For unknown reasons, the Exposer’s actual identity has been protected by Rapkin, Rapkin’s attorney and “Superstar” Steve Vondran, who is representing the Exposer. No reasoning has been given for the protection of his identity, and attorney Newman has been unsuccessful in having the court reveal his identity.
Newman, Cordova, Zachary “Liberty Troll” Kueker, Coulter and the Exposer’s podcast partner Frauditor Mania had also engaged in a number of crossover livestreams where they would appear on each other’s livestreams despite possible (or real) legal action against each other.
Last month Rapkin’s attorney noted concerns about comments made by Newman during a backstage session recorded after a livestream by Coulter and later released by Coulter. Newman stated that he was unaware he was recorded by Coulter in response to the concerns. He was then ordered by the Judge in the lawsuit to explain the comments.
Newman replied on Wednesday with a declaration detailing most of the above events but also including inappropriate behavior on the part of Attorney Vondran. Vondran had made inappropriate comments on Newman’s now defunct YouTube channels and followed those comments with over a dozen hostile e-mails containing more inappropriate communication.
Vondran filed a declaration of his own, apologizing for his comments and inappropriate communication and backed Newman’s claims that he had apologized to Newman and the men had no outstanding conflicts.
Newman’s declaration included a statement made on a December 20, 2025, livestream hosted on Coulter’s Dr. Dave Frauditor Terminator YouTube channel. He described his comments as:
I referenced the online speculation discussed above concerning whether John Doe and “his lawyer” may have had a relationship outside the ordinary attorney/client context. I also expressed confusion regarding the extent to which resources were being devoted to maintaining John Doe’s anonymity.
At no point during the livestream did I mention Ms. Rapkin by her first or last name, identify the 1a Audits Exposé channel, or otherwise expressly identify the individuals being discussed.
He described the later incident, in which he claimed that he was recorded without his permission:
On January 10, 2026, I appeared on a public livestream hosted by Mr. Coulter. Two additional YouTube personalities also participated in the livestream, namely “Frauditor Mania” and Paul J. Cohen.
The livestream lasted several hours, and I participated for more than an hour discussing copyright litigation, YouTube disputes, and related online commentary.
During the public livestream, the participants briefly discussed the fact that John Doe continued to oppose disclosure of his identity. At no point during the public livestream did I mention Ms. Rapkin by name or discuss any alleged relationship between Ms. Rapkin and John Doe.
After the livestream concluded, I remained on the non-public backstage portion of the StreamYard platform with Frauditor Mania and the other participants.
During the backstage discussion, I specifically asked whether the conversation was being recorded and was told that the backstage portion “doesn’t get recorded” and that recording was only possible when participants were “on stage.”
Based upon those representations, I reasonably believed the backstage discussion was private and non-public and did not believe the conversation was being recorded or would later be published.
It is my understanding that the backstage discussion lasted approximately ninety minutes. During that discussion, I again raised the issue of the costs and difficulty associated with litigating the anonymity dispute concerning John Doe. As I attempted to explain the issue, Frauditor Mania frequently interrupted me and spoke over me in the informal conversational environment.
During the course of that discussion, I made one inelegant and informal remark referencing the online speculation discussed above, stating that the only explanation that “made sense” for why so much effort and expense was being devoted to maintaining “your friend’s” anonymity was because “he’s banging the lawyer.” The remark was intended as a reference to the online speculation discussed above.
At no point during the backstage discussion did I mention “Lee Rapkin,” “Rapkin,” the “1a Audits Exposé” YouTube channel, or “the Exposer.” Rather, I referred only generally to “your friend” and “the lawyer.”
Adding further:
At the beginning of the February 6, 2026 video, Mr. Coulter said: “Today’s video takes us to a live stream that was broadcast by me. That’s right, Dr. Dave. And when Randy Boy decided he wanted to stay on and talk…I said “sure, I’ll leave the stream on.” Of course, this was off air, but you know what? Don’t trust a snake because a snake is always a snake…Dave will throw anybody under the bus.”
Coulter’s comments further reinforced my understanding that the backstage discussion was understood by participants to be off-air and non-public.
On or about February 9, 2026, Coulter released an additional portion of the backstage recording together with commentary and edits discussing the remarks made during the backstage discussion.
Again, at no point during the backstage discussion did I mention Ms. Rapkin by name, refer to “the Exposer,” identify the 1a Audits Exposé channel, or otherwise expressly identify the individuals being discussed. Rather, I referred only generally to “your friend” and “the lawyer.” A viewer unfamiliar with the broader online disputes would not know the identities of the persons being referenced absent later commentary and editorial framing added by Mr. Coulter.
Newman went on to state that since the described incidents, he had refrained from putting any of his speculation about the alleged relationship between Rapkin and the Exposer in legal filings and that he has given up his YouTube channel and left social media.
The controversial attorney also noted that Coulter had recently e-mailed him:
On May 11, 2026, Mr. Coulter sent me an email with the subject line “Problems With My Video?” stating in part: “I understand there may be a potential problem with a video I posted of you. I can fix that problem, and I do not mean by deleting the video. No, I have a much better idea. If you are interested, reply and let me know.”
Mr. Coulter’s email further confirmed that he retained control over publication of the videos containing the backstage discussion. I did not respond to Mr. Coulter’s email.
It’s uncertain what the Judge will do with either declaration by the attorneys, though the possibility of sanctions may be in play as he reviews both.
This is an on-going news story.
