After 24 Episodes of Hurling Wild Accusations at Others, Brian “Phontaine” and Hannah Judd Cry Defamation in $5.6MM Lawsuit

You really can’t make this stuff up.

The creators of The Crazy Train, a YouTube series that spans 24 episodes and levels serious spurious accusations at multiple people including yours truly, have filed a defamation lawsuit against a Utah woman, according to court documents I obtained from Utah’s Fourth Judicial District Court.

Brian “Phontaine” and Hannah Judd are seeking $5.6MM in damages against the woman who, as far as I can tell, was mildly critical of them online.

But what do they say she did that was so defamatory? According to the lawsuit, among other things, she:

• called Brian a manipulator,
• accused Brian of gaslighting,
• claimed Brian and Hannah were monetizing The Crazy Train,
• suggested there may be child abuse or neglect in the Judd household,
• equated Brian with LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson in an insulting and negative context.

<pearl_clutch>Gavin</pearl_clutch>

I’ve read the complaint, and while I don’t think they’ve got a case, that’s really not the point of this post. I’m not here to weigh in on whether or not their lawsuit will succeed. Because I don’t think it will, it would be a short post. Instead, I’m here to shine a light on the jaw-dropping irony of it all.

Let’s start with some context.

What Is The Crazy Train?

It’s a bunch of YouTube videos. The Judds describe it as a documentary series. It’s not, in my opinion. It’s more like a reality series; one where they are the stars, narrators, editors, producers, and victims. The show chronicles their move from Southern California back to Brian’s Northern California hometown and the subsequent fallout with their neighbors, their daughter, Brian’s dad and stepmom, and fellow church members. Over 24 episodes, they accuse people of fraud, abuse, conspiracy, betrayal, rumormongering, grooming, sexual assault, and more. They name names. They show faces. They include footage of minors.

In short, The Crazy Train is a sprawling, libelous attack on private citizens. And now its creators say someone has defamed them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Exhibit A: Brian Judd, Convicted but Somehow a “Law-Abiding Citizen”

In their lawsuit, the Judds describe Brian this way:

“Phontaine relies upon his professional reputation, as well as his reputation as a law-abiding citizen and person of good moral standing to earn his living…”

But in The Crazy Train, Brian admits he was convicted of assault. He doesn’t just mention it. He shows video of the incident that got him charged and convicted, a horrifying scene that appears to me to show multiple assaults by multiple Judd family members on multiple people.

(I can’t believe he even fought it in court! He’s lucky to have gotten off so easy, in my opinion.)

If you’re wondering whether an assault conviction contradicts the idea of being a law-abiding citizen, you’re not alone.

Exhibit B: The $800,000 Reality Series

According to the lawsuit:

“Plaintiffs have invested in excess of $800,000 in the production and distribution of the Crazy Train documentary.”

$800,000? On what???

There are no on-location interviews that I can see. No original reporting. No external experts. Just the Judds filming themselves, using old home videos, and monologuing from a set that appears to me to be their home. That and using what appear to me to be illegally obtained audio recordings of their victims. Oh, and the AI narrator! It’s just so, so bad.

They claim they had a full crew working on The Crazy Train. I couldn’t find any member of his crew on IMDB, which caused me to question the existence of any of them. Brian later claimed to use pseudonyms for his crew because he feared some kind of retaliation. Yeah, I’m not buying that. Maybe just leave off the names of crew altogether. But I guess that wouldn’t make it look like a disinterested third party produced the series rather than Brian’s company, Rumble Productions.

If this goes to trial, discovery is going to be very interesting. My hunch is they’re hoping it doesn’t get that far.

Exhibit C: Identity Games

On Reddit, Brian wrote, “Phontaine is my legal name and has been my DBA since I began working in Hollywood.”

But the court filing is signed:

So which is it? If Phontaine is his legal name, why include “Brian” at all? Unless, of course, you’re signing legal documents where truthfulness matters. Legal docs aren’t like a fake doc series, after all.

Let’s Talk About What They’ve Said About Me

I’m not writing this because I feel my reputation’s been harmed. It hasn’t. Nobody cares what the Judds claim. But since they’re suddenly concerned about defamation, I think it’s fair to revisit a few of the things they’ve said about me that are defamatory:

• they claimed I lost everything gambling on the housing market—false;
• they claimed I took money from people at church—false;
• they accused me of mimicking fraudulent behavior—false;
• they said I misled people into thinking I was wealthy—false;
• they accused me of affinity fraud—false;
• they said I exploited the families of murder victims—false;
• they said I’m not qualified to work as a reporter—false (I have well over 1,000 bylines, thankyouverymuch);
• they accused me of defending a pedophile—false, and he tried to delete it before I saw it.

That’s just a small sample. I’m not even the main target of their defamation! The things they say about others, some of whom I know, is beyond outrageous.

Projection Much?

The Judds claim I’m the dishonest one. They say I lack the credentials to do the work I do. They say I pretend to be someone I’m not. But let’s step back.

• They’ve misled people about Brian’s own name. I mean, how basic is that?
• They claim Brian, a convicted assaulter, is a law abiding citizen.
• They claim to have spent nearly a million dollars on a home movie series that they published to YouTube.
• They’ve dedicated years of their lives to telling the Internet about all the people around them that have wronged them.

Their accusations stretch from tech investors to church leaders, neighbors to teenagers. It’s like being lectured on honesty by the National Enquirer, or on morality by Larry Flynt. It would be hilarious if there weren’t so many actual victims in their wake.

A Quick Word on Public Figures

I think there’s a legal distinction worth noting. The Judds have made themselves public figures. They’ve launched a public campaign on YouTube. They’ve marketed a media series. They’ve opened themselves up to public scrutiny. In my opinion, that puts them squarely in the category of public persons under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark case that says public figures must prove “actual malice” to win a defamation suit. That’s a high bar. One I think they will struggle to clear.

Final Thoughts

If you’ve made it this far, you may be wondering if I’m next on the Judds’ lawsuit list. Probably. But I’m not worried. Everything I’ve shared here is either:

• a direct quote,
• a demonstrable fact,
• or my opinion.

And opinion, even harsh opinion, is protected speech. Isn’t America great?

For example, my opinion is that Brian has his head so far up his hind end he could host The Crazy Train from his own colon. In fact, given the lighting and acoustics, I’m starting to think they didn’t film the series in their house at all, but in Brian’s rectal cavity. I wonder if it smells like garlic in there, too?

The irony here isn’t just a footnote. It’s the point. After years of publicly accusing others, the Judds are now saying they’re the ones being hurt. That’s bold.

If truth is a defense against defamation, I’ll be just fine.

___

PS: I guess I should add my two cents about the accusations the Judds objected to in their lawsuit. In my opinion,

• Brian is a manipulator;
• Brian is a gaslighter;
• Brian and Hannah are monetizing The Crazy Train. Expectedly, they’re not doing a good job at it, but there is a donation link on every one of their videos and on their website. As an actual successful YouTuber, I can say without a doubt that a YouTube ad split is not the only form of monetization;
• I suspect there are serious coercively controlling behaviors by Brian and Hannah, which some states already recognize as abuse. They are, in my opinion, meticulously documented on Brian and Hannah’s various YouTube accounts;
• there’s nothing about Brian that’s even close to comparable to LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson in any context.