- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Parties
Montagraph: Real name Steve Quest, is a movie-maker known for being a shockjock online which ultimately due to the nature of his shockjockness attached a reputation of a pedophile onto him. This is an important part of Rekieta's defense. As far as anyone can tell, Quest is a massive weirdo that wanted the bad boy reputation, but is not actually a pedophile. No one, including the Kiwi Farms and highly paid lawyers for the defense, has ever been able to find anything to substantiate the rumors surrounding Quest. For his part, he has spent the last decade trying to solve, unsuccessfully, this reputation via defamation lawsuits. He has also denied all allegations in an interview with Null. Some of Montagraph's works include dressing up as Chris Crocker, making out with a melon to sell it for money, re-enacting 2-girls-1-cup with chocolate and a barbie doll, and the infamous "The Umbrella Man" where he pretends to torture his female victim in a basement, and then rape her (not shown in the actual movies). Nick and his friends accuse him of en masse harassing emails, but no evidence of that was ever shown.
Rumors:
He did nude photography with minors. This appears to be false. All available archives of his photography business strictly stated that the models had to be 18 or above.
He had sex with a melon. Partially true. He dressed it up as a girl and fingered it. It is a very contentious topic even on Kiwi Farms whether that materially counts as fucking or not.
He murdered a woman. Unsubstantiated. The sole source is an unhinged blog post from 2016.
He literally likes sucking little boys penises. The claim at basis of the litigation. Quest denies this, and the Defense has not found anything to substantiate this assertion.
Nicholas Rekieta: His OP describes him as "a non-practicing lawyer from central Minnesota whose specialty areas are drinking, degeneracy, and (drunkenly?) driving his children to their innumerable homeschool extracurricular activities on 1-2 hours of sleep and stimulants. [...H]e straps into a chair in a windowless room in his basement at some point after 11 PM Central, pours a bottle of liquor, licks the last drop off the neck, turns on the camera, and narcissistically vents to the Internet for 3 to 5 hours about all the hardships of his life as a rich kid, turned failed lawyer, turned streamer." While he used to enjoy a pretty stellar reputation, he managed to impressively waste it all away in the last 2 years, to the point that almost nobody likes him. He is so filled up with coke and alcohol, that his brain lost literally all it's short term functions.
Repeating the same super chat nine times with nine different answers:
Repeating the same super chat thrice with three different answers:
Edit as of 5/24/24. Unlike Montragraph, Nick appears to be a real threat to children. 5/28. It gets way way worse.
The Facts
On the 11th of January, 2023 (though the summons were issued on December 12th, 2022), Steve Quest sued Nicholas Rekieta for defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on October 12, 2022 (alongside October 6th and 18th) comments (in lawsuit listed as October 13th) where Rekieta accuses Montagraph of "always been into sucking uhhhh little boy cock" and being "a child molesting fucking faggot" and asking Montagraph to sue him (which evidently Quest did)
Montagraph wanted "a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand dollars" alongside reimbursement for having had to sue Nick, and for the court to forbid Nick from ever defaming him again.
After Nick failed to respond, Quest moved for a Default Judgement on January 13th. On the same day, Rekieta joined the case pro se and asked for extension of all deadlines, citing his attempts to communicate with Quest's lawyers that were ignored, and the fact that Nick wasn't home when he was served with the summons. On the 17th, Nick was granted the extension by the court until the 31st. On the 19th, one of the best 1st Amendment lawyers known for extorting everyone (emails), selling out his clients for cash to the opposing party, having been disciplined in every jurisdiction he has practiced in, was hired by Rekieta and joined the case on his behalf. On 7th of February, Montagraph amended his complaint in which he generally provides more information about Rekieta's defamation. On the 13th, Rekieta filed 155 pages of exhibits, and a day later filed his answer alongside the special motion to dismiss.
The answer was more or less a general denial, while the special motion to dismiss focused on immunity under Colorado law (the lawsuit was filed in Minesotta). The argument more or less claimed that since Montagraph lived in Colorado (that was a lie by Montagraph, but that was not apparent yet), and since he filed in Minnesota to bypass Anti-Slapp protections (protections against meritless lawsuits seeking to suppress speech. Minnesota found these protections unconstitutional), then Minnesota should apply Colorado law and dismiss the case as a clear exercise of Rekieta's free speech (notably, in U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010) Supreme Court held that “obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct” are exceptions that do not receive First Amendment protections.").
On the 21st, the Plaintiff filed a motion in objection to many of the exhibits, and the motion to dismiss. Of particular note is the method of objection to exhibit 2, being Montagraph's IMDB page listing him as the "Rapist" in his Umbrella man movies, and his tendency to use "young children in his work." The Plaintiff did not object to the facts therein, merely to their admissibility. To this day, for over four years now (there is evidence of the page existing as far back as 2017, but the archive is broken), he has never edited his page (or contacted IMDB to do it for him) to remove any alleged falsehoods. While the later is certainly weird and is perhaps evidence that he courted a shockjock reputation, the former should not be taken as unusual. While it's a bad look colloquially, that's just how these objections go.
On 28th, there was a Scheduling Conference hearing held off the record.
On the 3rd of April, the Defendants file a reply in support of their special motion to dismiss, pointing out, among other things, that the Plaintiff never denied the authenticity of the exhibits, and arguing that they are admissible. The rest of the reply was spent talking about Quest's long and weird reputation and insisting that the special motion to dismiss is ripe for judgement. On the same day he filed more exhibits which were just random twitter and youtube videos his law partner found online.
On the 10th of April a hearing was held on the special motion to dismiss. It was largely a contest of who was the most retarded, with Randazza doing his damn best to make it be him and his client. You can see the highlights here. In a genius move, the Plaintiff admitted that the harm "hasn't been generated yet." At the end, the defense asks for a rebuttal, but the judge says no. Despite the Plaintiff admitting that the damage was non-existent and weirdly asserting that only Rekieta would have evidence of it, the Judge would later side with the Plaintiff.
On July 10th, the Judge rejected the Defense's special motion to dismiss and ordered discovery. Two months later, on September 7th, the Defense would appeal that decision.
On 1st of August, there was another Scheduling Conference hearing.
On the 13th of September, the Appellate court ordered the Appellants (defense) to prove that the Appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
On 21st of September the official Court reporter discovered time travel. Her attempt to use time travel to submit transcripts was rejected.
On 11th of October, after reading through the briefs submitted by both sides (both submitted on the 25th of September), the appellate court accepted jurisdiction of the case.
On 23rd of October, the Appellant submitted his arguments. On 22nd of November the Respondents filed their own arguments.
On 28th of February, 2024, Oral argument was held:
Afterwards, Null and Ralphamale gave their own thoughts on the situation.
On the 20th of May, the Appellate court dismissed Rekieta's appeal.
The case is now back in the lower level, but nothing has been scheduled yet.
The case can be found and documents acquired here:
https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/CaseSearch (case number 34-CV-23-12)
https://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/search/publicCaseSearch.do (for the appeal. case number A23-1337)
Warning. VPN's sometimes have issue with both links. If they don't work, try turning your VPN off.
Honorable mentions:
@Captain Manning for the idea, feedback, and one of the clips I needed
@Himedall All-seeing Waifu for the part of Nick's new OP I quoted
@Null for May 21st stream, Montagraph's OP.
@5t3n0g0ph3r for creating the original OP
Montagraph: Real name Steve Quest, is a movie-maker known for being a shockjock online which ultimately due to the nature of his shockjockness attached a reputation of a pedophile onto him. This is an important part of Rekieta's defense. As far as anyone can tell, Quest is a massive weirdo that wanted the bad boy reputation, but is not actually a pedophile. No one, including the Kiwi Farms and highly paid lawyers for the defense, has ever been able to find anything to substantiate the rumors surrounding Quest. For his part, he has spent the last decade trying to solve, unsuccessfully, this reputation via defamation lawsuits. He has also denied all allegations in an interview with Null. Some of Montagraph's works include dressing up as Chris Crocker, making out with a melon to sell it for money, re-enacting 2-girls-1-cup with chocolate and a barbie doll, and the infamous "The Umbrella Man" where he pretends to torture his female victim in a basement, and then rape her (not shown in the actual movies). Nick and his friends accuse him of en masse harassing emails, but no evidence of that was ever shown.
Rumors:
He did nude photography with minors. This appears to be false. All available archives of his photography business strictly stated that the models had to be 18 or above.
He had sex with a melon. Partially true. He dressed it up as a girl and fingered it. It is a very contentious topic even on Kiwi Farms whether that materially counts as fucking or not.
He murdered a woman. Unsubstantiated. The sole source is an unhinged blog post from 2016.
He literally likes sucking little boys penises. The claim at basis of the litigation. Quest denies this, and the Defense has not found anything to substantiate this assertion.
Nicholas Rekieta: His OP describes him as "a non-practicing lawyer from central Minnesota whose specialty areas are drinking, degeneracy, and (drunkenly?) driving his children to their innumerable homeschool extracurricular activities on 1-2 hours of sleep and stimulants. [...H]e straps into a chair in a windowless room in his basement at some point after 11 PM Central, pours a bottle of liquor, licks the last drop off the neck, turns on the camera, and narcissistically vents to the Internet for 3 to 5 hours about all the hardships of his life as a rich kid, turned failed lawyer, turned streamer." While he used to enjoy a pretty stellar reputation, he managed to impressively waste it all away in the last 2 years, to the point that almost nobody likes him. He is so filled up with coke and alcohol, that his brain lost literally all it's short term functions.
Repeating the same super chat nine times with nine different answers:
Repeating the same super chat thrice with three different answers:
Edit as of 5/24/24. Unlike Montragraph, Nick appears to be a real threat to children. 5/28. It gets way way worse.
The Facts
On the 11th of January, 2023 (though the summons were issued on December 12th, 2022), Steve Quest sued Nicholas Rekieta for defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on October 12, 2022 (alongside October 6th and 18th) comments (in lawsuit listed as October 13th) where Rekieta accuses Montagraph of "always been into sucking uhhhh little boy cock" and being "a child molesting fucking faggot" and asking Montagraph to sue him (which evidently Quest did)
Montagraph wanted "a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand dollars" alongside reimbursement for having had to sue Nick, and for the court to forbid Nick from ever defaming him again.
After Nick failed to respond, Quest moved for a Default Judgement on January 13th. On the same day, Rekieta joined the case pro se and asked for extension of all deadlines, citing his attempts to communicate with Quest's lawyers that were ignored, and the fact that Nick wasn't home when he was served with the summons. On the 17th, Nick was granted the extension by the court until the 31st. On the 19th, one of the best 1st Amendment lawyers known for extorting everyone (emails), selling out his clients for cash to the opposing party, having been disciplined in every jurisdiction he has practiced in, was hired by Rekieta and joined the case on his behalf. On 7th of February, Montagraph amended his complaint in which he generally provides more information about Rekieta's defamation. On the 13th, Rekieta filed 155 pages of exhibits, and a day later filed his answer alongside the special motion to dismiss.
The answer was more or less a general denial, while the special motion to dismiss focused on immunity under Colorado law (the lawsuit was filed in Minesotta). The argument more or less claimed that since Montagraph lived in Colorado (that was a lie by Montagraph, but that was not apparent yet), and since he filed in Minnesota to bypass Anti-Slapp protections (protections against meritless lawsuits seeking to suppress speech. Minnesota found these protections unconstitutional), then Minnesota should apply Colorado law and dismiss the case as a clear exercise of Rekieta's free speech (notably, in U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010) Supreme Court held that “obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct” are exceptions that do not receive First Amendment protections.").
On the 21st, the Plaintiff filed a motion in objection to many of the exhibits, and the motion to dismiss. Of particular note is the method of objection to exhibit 2, being Montagraph's IMDB page listing him as the "Rapist" in his Umbrella man movies, and his tendency to use "young children in his work." The Plaintiff did not object to the facts therein, merely to their admissibility. To this day, for over four years now (there is evidence of the page existing as far back as 2017, but the archive is broken), he has never edited his page (or contacted IMDB to do it for him) to remove any alleged falsehoods. While the later is certainly weird and is perhaps evidence that he courted a shockjock reputation, the former should not be taken as unusual. While it's a bad look colloquially, that's just how these objections go.
On 28th, there was a Scheduling Conference hearing held off the record.
On the 3rd of April, the Defendants file a reply in support of their special motion to dismiss, pointing out, among other things, that the Plaintiff never denied the authenticity of the exhibits, and arguing that they are admissible. The rest of the reply was spent talking about Quest's long and weird reputation and insisting that the special motion to dismiss is ripe for judgement. On the same day he filed more exhibits which were just random twitter and youtube videos his law partner found online.
On the 10th of April a hearing was held on the special motion to dismiss. It was largely a contest of who was the most retarded, with Randazza doing his damn best to make it be him and his client. You can see the highlights here. In a genius move, the Plaintiff admitted that the harm "hasn't been generated yet." At the end, the defense asks for a rebuttal, but the judge says no. Despite the Plaintiff admitting that the damage was non-existent and weirdly asserting that only Rekieta would have evidence of it, the Judge would later side with the Plaintiff.
On July 10th, the Judge rejected the Defense's special motion to dismiss and ordered discovery. Two months later, on September 7th, the Defense would appeal that decision.
On 1st of August, there was another Scheduling Conference hearing.
On the 13th of September, the Appellate court ordered the Appellants (defense) to prove that the Appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
On 21st of September the official Court reporter discovered time travel. Her attempt to use time travel to submit transcripts was rejected.
On 11th of October, after reading through the briefs submitted by both sides (both submitted on the 25th of September), the appellate court accepted jurisdiction of the case.
On 23rd of October, the Appellant submitted his arguments. On 22nd of November the Respondents filed their own arguments.
On 28th of February, 2024, Oral argument was held:
Afterwards, Null and Ralphamale gave their own thoughts on the situation.
On the 20th of May, the Appellate court dismissed Rekieta's appeal.
The case is now back in the lower level, but nothing has been scheduled yet.
The case can be found and documents acquired here:
https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/CaseSearch (case number 34-CV-23-12)
https://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/search/publicCaseSearch.do (for the appeal. case number A23-1337)
Warning. VPN's sometimes have issue with both links. If they don't work, try turning your VPN off.
Honorable mentions:
@Captain Manning for the idea, feedback, and one of the clips I needed
@Himedall All-seeing Waifu for the part of Nick's new OP I quoted
@Null for May 21st stream, Montagraph's OP.
@5t3n0g0ph3r for creating the original OP
Last edited:
