New filings last week in the on-going dispute between Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova and Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Huneault provided a confusing way forward for the lawsuit that left Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi confused and demanding clarification from Huneault’s attorney.
Correcting our previous coverage, Huneault had filed a motion to dismiss that Judge DeMarchi had ruled had only included himself and his 14693663 Canada Inc. and excluded his wife, Nneka Ohiri.
Ohiri’s absence from the motion to dismiss led to Cordova’s attorney, That Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, filing to hold Ohiri in default since her name was left off of the motion to dismiss and there had been no response to the filing of an amended complaint.
The parties conferred and an agreement was made where Newman would drop his motion to hold Ohiri in default in exchange for Huneault’s attorney, “Superstar” Steve Vondran, filing a response to the amended complaint on behalf of Ohiri.
DeMarchi ordered a January 6, 2026, deadline for Ohiri’s response to the amended complaint.
On January 6, Vondran filed a response to the amended complaint on behalf of all three of his clients, along with a counter claim on behalf of his clients. This move confused Judge DeMarchi, who then issued an order for clarification by Vondran, as it was unusual for the defendants in a lawsuit arguing for both the dismissal of the lawsuit while pressing the lawsuit forward with an answer to the amended complaint.
Attorney Vondran responded that he intended to move forward with both the response to the amended complaint and his motion to dismiss on behalf of all of his clients. The attorney noted that the motion to dismiss only covered counts two through four of amended complaint, so a response to the amended complaint on behalf of all of his clients was warranted.
Vondran also shared his belief that despite Judge DeMarchi clearly indicating that Ohiri was not included in the motion to dismiss; that Ohiri was somehow included in said motion. He then expressed his concern that attorney Newman would attempt to hold Huneault and 14693663 Canada Inc. in default should they not answer the amended complaint.
A little after the filing of the response to the amended complaint and the filing complaint, Huneault went live on his channel to address the filings. He indicated that he firmly believed that his work was licensed by Cordova as a perpetual license was granted in a recently shared livestream from 2022 featuring both Cordova and Huneault.
Huneault’s new filings reflect this statement, with the narrative in the counter claim taking Cordova to task for refusing to honor his alleged licensing deal with Huneault and filing DMCA takedown notices that resulted in two suspensions of Huneault’s Frauditor Troll YouTube channel in 2023.
Huneault’s counter claim requests the following from Judge DeMarchi:
- Enter judgment in favor of Counterclaimant on all causes of action.
- Declare that Counterclaimants videos are protected by 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).
- Issue a declaratory judgement that Counterclaimants did not infringe on Plaintiff’s copyright.
- Award actual damages, consequential damages, and statutory damages where available, subject to proof.
- Award attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Grant injunctive relief preventing further misuse of the DMCA.
- Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper
On his livestream, Huneault indicated that two suspensions from YouTube in 2023 suspensions resulted in roughly $9,000.00 CAD in lost revenue for his channel. He displayed his YouTube analytics from the time period to prove his point.
The Canadian YouTuber also indicated that he has paid roughly $40,000.00 CAD for his legal defense as of last week, with $27,000.00 CAD of that money coming from direct donations from his friends and fans.
Critics of Huneault were quick to point out that Huneault’s belief that he had a license from Cordova to use video material in perpetuity is new and coincided with the discovery by Huneault of the livestream featuring both himself and Cordova.
That livestream essentially involved the discussion of Cordova’s prank channel which he ran with YouTuber Josh Abrams. While Cordova did say on the 2022 livestream that he had no problem with Huneault using material from his channel at the time of the livestream and that he had no intention to sue, Cordova has since clarified his stance.
In his own recent livestreams, Cordova has contended that he gave Huneault verbal permission to feature clips from his prank channel on Huneault’s steams. According to Cordova, this was a non-binding statement and applied to content on his prank channel and not his other YouTube channels, including his auditing channels.
Huneault’s use of material from those auditing channels is at the heart of Cordova’s legal complaint.
Critics of the Canadian YouTuber noted that he did not mention a binding agreement with Cordova until the discovery of the 2022 livestream. The claim is not included in his YouTube counter notices nor was it mentioned in filings or statements in his livestreams before the discovery of the livestream.
The discovery of the video is also problematic since Huneault had previously admitted on multiple YouTube livestreams that he had deleted nearly 2,000 videos from his channel to prevent future lawsuits. It is unclear what videos Huneault has access to, despite his claims of total deletion.
Cordova has yet to respond to Huneault’s counter claim or response to the amended complaint as of press time.
Cordova v. Huneault – 56 – Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Cordova v. Huneault – 57 – Response to Second Amended Complaint Cordova v. Huneault – 58 – Countersuit Cordova v. Huneault – 58-1 – Exhibit 1 Cordova v. Huneault – 58-2 – Exhibit 2 Cordova v. Huneault – 58-3 – Exhibit 3 Cordova v. Huneault – 58-4 – Exhibit 4 Cordova v. Huneault – 58-5 – Exhibit 5 Cordova v. Huneault – 58-6 – Exhibit 6 Cordova v. Huneault – 58-7 – Exhibit 7 Cordova v. Huneault – 59 – Order Cordova v. Huneault – 60 – Defendant's Response to Docket #59
JF Critics of Huneault were quick to point out that Huneault’s belief that he had a license from Cordova to use video material in perpetuity is new and coincided with the discovery by Huneault of the livestream featuring both himself and Cordova.
Okay, lets talk about “new” evidence. You can call it what you like but we are peering into a court case so a little legal understanding might help.
Working backwards, so once the case has closed on either or both sides, the introduction of new evidence is very limited. It can be done for very exceptional reasons. But for the most part, when you close, you close and the case is done. No one has closed a case here.
Take a step backward to the start of the courtroom portion. At this point discovery is done and the jury is ready to hear the case or just the judge as the case may be, You can still bring in newly discovered evidence but it is more open then new evidence after close, it still has a higher burden of showing why it was not introduced at discovery. It is called “Unfair surprise” in some jurisdictions. Depending on the gravity of evidence, it may be allowed in. The weight it holds, the more likely in the interest of justice to allow it to be entered.
Okay, that is it.
Everything else is now in discovery. Everything else is now allowed. Everything else is now allowed to be brought up for the review of the court. So, tomorrow another video surfaces. Fine. They have a recording, an email, his signed confession on the back of a still photograph of him holding the knife over the dead body. All allowed in. Because at this point, you are gathering information. You are collecting what you need and what you can find.
This is not a game of “I left it in my other pants.” Everything goes in now in the discovery phase. This is why in some large cases, they ship over hundreds of boxes of memos, all messed about without order or organization. You dig and find it. And if you missed something, too bad. It was in box labeled XXWQ. Seriously. And then in the middle of court, you send some memo that the other side missed and drop it on the head of a witness. The other side objects. So long as you can show you gave it in discovery, that side is in trouble.
In this case, FT is still searching and finding evidence. It is all good for the lawsuit/lolsuit
One last thing here. Ambiguity? Is not something you get in your favour. Oh I meant the other channel. Nope. It is your job to say what you mean clearly from the start or at least to clarify what you said before you go to court. To now say, oh i meant the other channel, just says another person can and has take a whole other meaning to what was said.
The dog ate my homework was never a good excuse and this case is just so filled with that type of excuse.