Controversial YouTuber and attorney Patrick J. D’Arcy released a new video on Thursday explaining his failed attempt to file for leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in the on-going Christopher J. Cordova (Denver Metro Audits) v. Jonathan Huneault (Frauditor Troll) lawsuit and why he feels that failure may have helped champion his cause.
D’Arcy had previously made a vow to disrupt the life of that Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq. by saying, “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.”
He followed up the vow, by attempting to file the Amicus Curiae brief in the DMA vs. Troll lawsuit. Filing despite there being no response from the defense in the case yet, having no real standing to file said brief before the case even began, and, as the judge pointed out in her ruling denying the request, filing something that literally had nothing to do with the copyright case itself.
Fans of D’Arcy has hailed him a hero, standing up for “the little guy” and taking his vow against Newman seriously. He had also been seen as a counterpoint to Newman and John “Merb34st” Rietveld, providing a more laid back and serious approach to topics on his YouTube channel.
D’Arcy has also received criticism as the group of YouTubers he is defending includes Dr. Dave, who routinely makes what only can be construed as comments that are both as sexist and as allegedly racist as he claims are contained in the videos put out by attorney Newman.
The California YouTuber also did not address the actual point of the DMA vs. Troll lawsuit: The alleged violation of the “fair use” doctrine. While clearly choosing sides, clearly preferring the “anti-auditing” personalities to the “auditing” personalities, he has never weighed in on the legality of their actions that cased the multiple lawsuits in the first place.
D’Arcy continued to ignore the legalities involved in the cased in his latest video, instead focusing on the idea that he got a “win” because he forced the Judge in the case to read all of his motions and look at all of his exhibits to show what an awful person he perceived attorney Newman to be.
He then raged at both Merb and Newman in a series of post video stills, writing:
$24k is a small price to get the message delivered, as it would affect many other similar cases. The persons Randy attacked all sit on juries. Merb, aka Jon Rietveld, I’m asking for a third time. Since being admitted to the bar in 2018, show me your career wins for cases valued at $1,000,000 or more where you were lead counsel. I dismissed or won five cases in the last year alone worth a combined $17M, and some in the pleading stage.
You probably missed the nuance. The judge cited to my case as proof I do not have to be “impartial” to file the brief. More nuanced is this statement: “In any event, there is nothing in the proposed brief that draws the Court’s attention to any pertinent law or fact that would otherwise escape the Court’s consideration or that would “assist” the Corut in any respect.” That says it all – the brief contains factual information that the Court alone can deal with, if the need arises.
Newman, true to his character, responded with a YouTube community post:
Open Invitation to Patrick J. D’Arcy, Esq (aka Duhhhh Arcy)
Patrick, you’ve hinted (and outright said) that my videos contain defamatory statements. Here’s your chance to prove it.
If you believe I’ve made any factual assertion about you that’s false, identify it below or email me. I’ll review every single one in good faith and consider removing anything that crosses the line.
For the record: commentary, opinion, and fair comment on court filings are 100% protected under the First Amendment and California’s anti-SLAPP statute. But if I got something factually wrong, show me where.
And by the way… still no explanation for Exhibit 9 or why you accused me of saying something I never said in your filing. As I said in one of my shorts: you’ve got an ego problem, Patrick, you can’t admit when you’re wrong. So instead, you cry on YouTube and whine to the Court like a little B-tch. Some “Super” lawyer… you’re a joke.
Clock’s ticking. If you can’t name one, we both know what this is really about, Patrick’s little hurt fee-fees. I’m waiting for you to file a Motion for Hurt Feelings and ask the judge to stop the “mean mean DMCA Lawyer” from making “mean mean memes.” Go cry to Electronic Jesus, loser. You can do 1,000 trials and win a billion $1m+ cases and you’d still be a f-ing loser.
Merb responded in his own way, taking a more middle of the road approach. He reminded attorney D’Arcy that his prediction about what the judge would do came true. He also sarcastically reiterated that he was a “first year family law attorney” and that he couldn’t or wouldn’t compete with D’Arcy’s pedigree.
He also stated that it didn’t matter, as the judge ruled against D’Arcy and the matter was now closed.
D’Arcy has not responded to either Merb’s video or Newman’s challenge as of press time.
