A recent filing in the ongoing legal dispute between Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova’s Executive Lens LLC and attorney Lee Rapkin and a John Doe defendant (YouTuber “the Exposer”) may have an impact on YouTuber Dave “Dr. Dave” Coulter’s plans to sue the YouTuber known as Audit Them.
Currently, YouTuber Audit Them has a protective order against Coulter in Cook County, Illinois, Domestic Violence Court. Coulter is fighting the order and, at the same time, recently filed two copyright strikes against Audit Them for using his footage without permission.
Audit Them filed counternotices and Coulter has under a week to file a lawsuit against Audit Them in his home state of Illinois or the videos would be restored by YouTube.
As part of the lead up to Coulter’s decision, he’s been mentioning “Sinsational” Simon Lin and Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq., as possibilities of attorneys he would hire to handle the lawsuit.
While no one has ascertained how serious Coulter has been in hiring either man, who are involved in Cordova’s lawsuit against fellow YouTuber Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Hudon-Huneault, a recent filing in the Executive Lens v. Rapkin case may make attorney Newman unavailable for hire based on Coulter’s own actions earlier in the year.
Plaintiff’s Counsel’ Comments on Ms. Rapkin Counsel for Ms. Rapkin has learned that Plaintiff’s counsel made certain crude comments regarding Ms. Rapkin in a video posted to YouTube by subscriber “Dr. Dave Frauditor Terminator” on or about February 9, 2026.
Plaintiff’s Position
Plaintiff objects to inclusion of this issue in the Joint Case Management Statement because it is unrelated to any claim, defense, scheduling issue, or other proper case management matter.
Plaintiff denies that any alleged statements made outside of this litigation are relevant to any claim or defense in this action or appropriate for inclusion in a case management statement. . The statements referenced by Ms. Rapkin were allegedly made in or about January 2026, and Plaintiff’s counsel has made no such statements at any time thereafter. Any statements referenced by Ms. Rapkin were made during a private conversation that was recorded and later published to YouTube without counsel’s knowledge or consent. Plaintiff is informed and believes that such recording and publication violates Florida’s two-party consent statute.
Plaintiff further denies Ms. Rapkin’s assertion that Plaintiff’s counsel knew or reasonably should have known that the conversation at issue was being recorded or would later be disseminated publicly on YouTube. To the contrary, Plaintiff’s counsel was expressly informed during the conversation that it was not being recorded. Accordingly, and contrary to Ms. Rapkin’s characterization, Plaintiff’s counsel has not made any public statements regarding Ms. Rapkin or her character. Plaintiff further denies that any such allegations warrant judicial intervention or any form of relief in this proceeding.
Defendant’s Position
The Northern District’s Standing Order on Civility and Professionalism (“Local Civility Rules”) provides that, counsel should “[a]bstain from conduct that demeans the dignity of the Court, the opposing party, or the profession” and warns that “[p]ersonal attacks, inflammatory language, discriminatory statements, or abusive tactics will not be tolerated.” The Local Civility Rules authorize the Court to impose appropriate sanctions, including admonishment on the record. Moreover, Local Rule 11-6 explicitly authorizes the judge to refer the matter to the Northern District Court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct, in the event that judge “has cause to believe” that the attorney “has engaged in unprofessional conduct.” L.R. 11-6(a). Counsel for Ms. Rapkin respectfully requests that the Court issue an order directing Plaintiff’s counsel to refrain from making any further public comments regarding Ms. Rapkin or her character during the pendency of this litigation.
In light of the context in which the statements were made by Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Rapkin has reasonable grounds to believe (1) that Plaintiff’s counsel made such extrajudicial statements knowing that they were being recorded, and/or (2) that Plaintiff’s counsel knew or reasonably should have known that the extrajudicial statements would be disseminated to the public.
Attorney Newman has yet to make a public statement addressing Coulter’s apparent interest in hiring him following the filing.
Coulter’s decision to air a supposedly secretly recorded session with Newman appearing in a legal filing was on no one’s BINGO card for the month of May. That decision may end up costing Coulter representation if he chooses to pursue his legal against Audit Them.
The filing has not impacted Coulter’s on-going Help David Fight False Claims and Harassment GoFundMe fund, which was silent for the third day in a row on Saturday.
YouTuber SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes won the day with a $100.00 donation to his Support The Fight Against Tyranny & Corruption campaign. Hudon-Huneault’s Help us Fight this anti-free speech retaliation lawsuit campaign placed second for the month by losing $13.00 in value due to exchange rate changes between USD and CAD.
No other campaigns that we follow saw new donations for Saturday.
Crowd Sourcing Results
