Patrick D’Arcy Interjects Self into Frauditor Troll v. DMA

Formerly mild-mannered California attorney Patrick D’Arcy followed through on a threat he made towards that Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq., by filing for leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in the on-going Christopher J. Cordova  (Denver Metro Audits) v. Jonathan Huneault (Frauditor Troll) lawsuit.

The two California licensed attorneys have been at odds for some time, with D’Arcy most recently calling out the outspoken Newman for his continued filing of lawsuits targeting the anti-auditing community and his perceived “unprofessional” behavior.

In that video, D’Arcy commented, “Why you thought I was a target just mystifies me. I had never put you down. I don’t put people down in videos, but you have now brought me into your life, and you’re going to find that it’s going to be a very expensive and difficult process for you. Now, I will fund your adversaries. I will help you lose cases. Now, you do get a chance to cherry pick the cases you think could win under your simplified four factors analysis.”

Newman, who has been an outspoken critic of the anti-auditing community, responded to D’Arcy’s video by releasing a series of videos mocking D’Arcy’s professional and personal life. He also continued to appear in interviews on his client’s livestreams and did a four-hour stint as a guest on last Friday’s ReallyCoolNews marathon.

D’Arcy himself remained fairly quiet until Monday’s filing. Carrying through on his threat to Newman, he filed for the ability to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in the matter of Cordova v. Huneault.

The filing is unusual as D’Arcy has no clients associated with the lawsuit and seems to be actively attempting to stifle Newman’s own first amendment protected speech as justification to protect the first amendment speech that D’Arcy seems to be claiming that Newman is actively working to squash.

D’Arcy clearly states that he “sides” with the anti-auditing community and has had extensive communication with Huneault but claimed that he has “advised” the anti-auditors, including Huneault, to seek regular copyright attorneys in their defense and not to rely on him as apparently, it’s not his field of expertise.

His filing also makes no attempts to stop the lawsuit itself, offering no actual legal opinion on the matter. Instead, D’Arcy is seeking to stop Newman from making further videos about the lawsuit and to remove those videos Newman has posted to YouTube.

D’Arcy further wants Newman to be held accountable for a laundry list of “unprofessional conduct as Counsel of Record” and be forced to answer to for the following:

That Newman respond to the following allegations of his alleged unprofessional conduct (the “Conduct”), including alleged violations of Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 11(b)(1), and Local Rules 11-4 and 11-6:

1. a) That Newman provide justification as a Court Officer for publicly depicting, describing and commenting on Defendant in an alleged derogatory and demeaning fashion, such as is shown in Exhibit 4-001, and related videos posted or discussed on his and Cordova’s YouTube channel;
2. b) That Newman provide justification as a Court Officer for depicting “Frauditor Mania,” a potential witness to this litigation, in an alleged racially offensive manner, in alleged violation of anti-discrimination laws based upon race, and the alleged misogynistic videos postings about his spouse, such as is shown in Exhibit 6, and related videos posted or discussed on his and Cordova’s YouTube channel;
3. c) That Newman provide justification as a Court Officer for depicting BlackHartKnight (“BHK”), a teacher, and potential witness to this litigation, in an alleged derogatory and demeaning fashion, such as is shown in Exhibit 4-002, and related videos posted on his and Cordova’s YouTube channel;
4. d) That Newman provide justification for his alleged anti-Semitic comment [Ex. 11-003], as not violative of his oath to the state and federal constitution, the laws of California, the Rules of this Court, and the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California as prohibited religious discrimination such as shown on Exhibit 11;
5. e) That Newman provide justification for his videos concerning Amicus Curiae, as not violative of the state and federal Constitution, the laws of California, the Rules of this Court, and the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California as prohibited religious discrimination and civil harassment such as shown on Exhibit 1;
6. f) That Newman provide justification how he and Cordova’s Prohibited Videos and public comments about the Litigation, the Defendant, and potential witnesses, such as Frauditor Mania, his spouse, Dr. Dave, and BHK, will not prevent the litigants from receiving a fair trial tried to an impartial jury;
7. g) That Newman and Cordova’s actions of making Prohibited Videos and public statements about Amicus Curiae, and potential witnesses, such as Frauditor Mania, his spouse, Dr. Dave, and BHK, could not be deemed witness intimidation; and
8. h) Whether this case should be transferred to a different District Court within California, given the proximity of prominent Auditor channels near the Court, and the pretrial publicity attributed to Newman and Plaintiff.

Critics of both have accused the men as performing as World Wrestling Entertainment inspired characters, bending truths and making outrageous comments and taking extreme actions against each other for the sake of internet clicks and views.

Those critics were quick to pounce on D’Arcy, as a prominent figure who D’Arcy claims to be defending is YouTuber Doctor Dave. The controversial YouTube “Doctor” has been openly accused of disparaging immigrants, making homophobic comments, taking inappropriate photographs of women without consent, actively using racial slurs on the air against critics and detractors and in at least one case, brandishing a weapon on stream to threaten critics with assault.

Newman has also received criticism for being bash and outspoken in Discord forums (including our own ReallyCoolNewsWire server), in YouTube comments and in his own YouTube videos. He’s received criticism for commenting on his own cases and for representing unpopular figures such as Jose “Chille” DeCastro, who has openly wished bone cancer on the children of his detractors and has claimed that the death of police officers has personally stimulated his emotions.

Attorney Newman released the following statement to ReallyCoolNews: “D’Arcy’s so-called ‘amicus’ brief is less a legal filing and more a YouTube tantrum disguised as federal practice. It has no basis in law or fact, and the only thing it proves is that he’s butthurt — willing to waste $24,000 of attorney time on a Motion to Prevent Hurt Feelings. And at the end of the day, I have a First Amendment right to make fun of his stupidity — including his absurd claim that he saw a 40-foot ‘electronic Jesus’ in his backyard.”

It remains to be seen what happens next as D’Arcy has taken an on-line threat to harm Newman and turned it into a real-life attempt to interfere with an actual Federal lawsuit filed against one of the men he’s “siding” with.

Update: Attorney Newman filed a motion to strike Tuesday morning calling D’Arcy’s motion inappropriate and was based on D’Arcy’s personal animosity and threats towards Newman rather than a pressing legal challenge to the lawsuit.

Newman stated, “there is no defendant, no pending motion, and no live dispute. D’Arcy provides no legal analysis, only personal grievances and YouTube commentary. Because there is no role for an amicus at this stage, and because his submission is merely a frivolous non-party motion in disguise, the Court should strike it from the docket.”

He continued, “D’Arcy’s August 8, 2025 video removes any doubt about his motive: he openly threatened to insert himself into this case to increase costs, to “fund adversaries,” and to “help [Plaintiff’s counsel] lose cases.” He has now done precisely that, boasting that he spent $24,000 preparing a brief that contains no meaningful law and instead consists largely of memes and screenshots from YouTube commentary.

Sanctions are warranted when litigation conduct is undertaken in bad faith or multiplies proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously. 28 U.S.C. § 1927; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45–46 (1991) (A court may assess attorney’s fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, or for oppressive reasons); Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000). That is exactly what has occurred here. While Plaintiff’s primary request is that the filing be struck, D’Arcy should be cautioned that future misuse of the docket will expose him to monetary sanctions under § 1927 or the Court’s inherent powers.”

This is a developing news story.

Full disclosure: Both Mr. Newman and Mr. D’Arcy have contributed money to ReallyCoolNews over the last year in order to help with the costs of document purchases. Neither man has editorial influence over the content produced by our print website, our YouTube live events, or our produced videos.