AnyballLecter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
What are the alleged defamatory statements in this lawsuit?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Go to the lawsuit thread for more details. The opening documents are attachments in the OP.What are the alleged defamatory statements in this lawsuit?
The scales should be replaced with two lots of Balldo encased testicles.
IMO, if you want good legal commentary from someone on “the right” that is honest and earnest, Robert Gouveia is a great channel to check out.
It's pretty obvious his engagement has dropped off a cliff. I wonder how long until his handlers at Rumble start asking questions and digging? Nevertheless, I've taken all these retards (RL, MGTOW, LM mostly) off subscribe and told YT to stop recommending them. It's been kind of nice, honestly.Shit doesn’t add up at outside glance. I wish I took screenshots, but there were comments just saying (paraphrasing) “why is the comment count so low?” that got kicked.
LM is dickride or die. Like I said. He rides Nick’s coattails so fucking hard he even made Nick’s childhood friend one of his streaming buddies.
All MGTOW and PUA are either outright faggots, faggot adjacent, cucks and/or incel retards. Literally every single one of these Rico Sauve retard niggers.
It glowsGo ahead and google (remember to always refer to web searches as “googling” or “to google” to erode their trademark) “man rapes puppy” and you will see multiple cases around the world every year. If you want to get even more fucked up shit, look up rape of infants. It’s more often than you might think and it fairly often involves perps literally fucking the infant to death.
Artthecuck one of my favorites too. When he isn't simping, he's in full tardrage mode at those damn dirty trolls leaking the chat out of context. Isn't he in his 60s and his wife (can't remember her username) is in her 40s? Or am I getting them confused with Sally and her husband?I've been watching the chat and I really think art has lolcow potential. Every minor offence in that chat seems to live rent free in his head. I'm expecting big things from him in the future.
Go to the lawsuit thread for more details. The opening documents are attachments in the OP.
VI.
On October 6, 2022, Defendant Nicholas Rekieta was a guest on a livestreamed
program called Megan Fox Investigates for an interview about why Defendant Nicholas
Rekieta was banned from Youtube. During this livestream, Defendant Nicholas Rekieta
made various false statements of a sexual nature about Plaintiff.
VII.
On October 13, 2022, Defendants published a video in which another lawyer
named Andrew d'Adesky (also known as Legal Mindset) appeared as a guest. During
this published video, Defendant Nicholas Rekieta accused Plaintiff of disgusting crimes
against children, pedophilia, then, stated Plaintiff " should probably be shot in the
fucking head."
VIII.
On October 18, 2022, Defendants published a video with several guests who
were named as lawyers, Steven Gosney, Sean Martin, and Kurt Mueller serving as a
panel, where a meme of guns (AK47s) pointed at Plaintiff's head accompanied by
Defendant Nicholas Rekieta making false statements about Plaintiff.
Whoever wants to publicly brag about being a cuck for strangers on the internet is functionally retarded. Even if you were a cuck, you stfu about it. But for some reason this guy is happy to continue letting everyone know how much of a great dude he is because of the cucking.Artthecuck one of my favorites too. When he isn't simping, he's in full tardrage mode at those damn dirty trolls leaking the chat out of context. Isn't he in his 60s and his wife (can't remember her username) is in her 40s? Or am I getting them confused with Sally and her husband?
These people are incredibly sad. They seem like they all have very low self-esteem and have very fragile identities. They probably watch Nick because it let's them feel like they're hanging with the cool kid like they never could back in the high school. If they were younger they'd probably all be troons and genderspecials.
You're thinking of Sally and her husband. Art is married to EgalitarianBitch (who is also much younger than him from what I'm able to tell).Artthecuck one of my favorites too. When he isn't simping, he's in full tardrage mode at those damn dirty trolls leaking the chat out of context. Isn't he in his 60s and his wife (can't remember her username) is in her 40s? Or am I getting them confused with Sally and her husband?
These people are incredibly sad. They seem like they all have very low self-esteem and have very fragile identities. They probably watch Nick because it let's them feel like they're hanging with the cool kid like they never could back in the high school. If they were younger they'd probably all be troons and genderspecials.
There is a little more in the affidavit Monty's lawyer filed for the default:That is more helpful than saying "Fuck off," but only slightly more helpful. There are six PDFs at the bottom of the OP and you can't see the full filenames without downloading them. I think this is the only relevant part.
The only quote of Rekieta in the complaint is "should probably be shot in the fucking head."
The rest is characterising things Rekieta has said. In particular it is very coy about the sexual predation accusations.
Is that a proper defamation complaint - shouldn't they include specific transcripts as evidence, or does that only come later in a hearing?
This seems to be the meat of it:
MCRO_34-CV-23-12_Summons and Complaint_2023-01-11_20230112153559.pdf
According to Nick defamation has to be pled with specificity. General statements about what they claim Nick said wouldn't meet the specificity requirement.That is more helpful than saying "Fuck off," but only slightly more helpful. There are six PDFs at the bottom of the OP and you can't see the full filenames without downloading them. I think this is the only relevant part.
The only quote of Rekieta in the complaint is "should probably be shot in the fucking head."
The rest is characterising things Rekieta has said. In particular it is very coy about the sexual predation accusations.
Is that a proper defamation complaint - shouldn't they include specific transcripts as evidence, or does that only come later in a hearing?
This seems to be the meat of it:
MCRO_34-CV-23-12_Summons and Complaint_2023-01-11_20230112153559.pdf
I'd question (a) whether these videos are edited in such a way that they clearly identify specific statements that are alleged to be defamatory and (b) if they're not part of the public record, whether they can even repair the deficiency in the pleadings which are part of the public record.There is a little more in the affidavit Monty's lawyer filed for the default:
View attachment 4277461
He also says he uploaded videos to the court's exhibit system. Unfortunately, that is a limited cloud system that only allows access by the filing party and court personnel--neither Rackets nor us can see what was uploaded. Schneider should have served the videos on Rackets, but we don't know if he did.
If we can't even know specifically what the allegedly defamatory comments are, they shouldn't be considered.
There is a little more in the affidavit Monty's lawyer filed for the default:
He also says he uploaded videos to the court's exhibit system. Unfortunately, that is a limited cloud system that only allows access by the filing party and court personnel--neither Rackets nor us can see what was uploaded. Schneider should have served the videos on Rackets, but we don't know if he did.
XVI.
The course of Defendants' wrongful conduct was so extreme and outrageous that it
goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized society
and within the State of Minnesota.
Nice Russell Greer reference! Well done, sir.A lot of people in the Lawtube community would be bias towards Rekieta.
Yes, this is what I expected to see in the complaint, or something like "refer to exhibit B, timestamp XX:YY ... where the defendent said the plaintiff is a big do-do head ...."
So is the lawyer leaving out the actual meat of the complaint out of the fucking complaint, and only explaining his case properly when filing for default crazy? Or crazy like a fox? In other word is it a shady trick or just sloppiness?
Everything in this post is 100% correct.Nick's streams about the case are already really weird. He goes on and on about he was entitled to an extension because he was served near his birthday or holidays or whatever. He also goes on about how the other attorney was obliged to answer his request for an extension during those same holidays when Nick was too busy to do the response. And because they didn't give an answer on an extension, he somehow had a right to not respond.
Nick is also clueless about the nature of his legal reputation today. The common courtesy that normally exists between attorneys doesn't really apply to dealing one-on-one with a degenerate weirdo who is going to take every single word you say directly to him and put it up on the internet. If you are well-known public asshole like Nick, you have no right to be treated with normal respect. You are going to get the ethical minimum. Nick just doesn't get that. He thinks its still four years ago and that everyone has to be nice to him. If Nick hires someone to represent him, that person will get respect. But Nick directly dealing with anyone isn't going to get it anymore.
One of the videos I watched had some retard playing with his guns while Nick was talking about the inner details of his own case attacking other attorneys and drinking. It just doesn't look good.
I don't really blame Monty's lawyers for ghosting Nick. This case is about Nick's streaming about Monty. As such, it makes sense that his attorneys may have seen the stream where Nick explicitly says that a) he had reached an agreement to retain Marc Randazza to represent him in the case, b) that he was imminently paying the retainer fee, and c) he would be "an idiot" to represent himself.I think if he technically defaults but this turns out to be the case, not only will it be set aside on motion, but Monty (and his douchebag lawyer) will have earned the dislike of the court even more than it already dislikes Nick (if that is even true).
I read the case filing and a local news story about it, and I'm kind of with the judge on this one. This woman ruined a whole family's life, along with putting their employees out of work, due to her thievery, which was around $500,000 in crane bucks. While I like the tactic of her pleading guilty to a few counts so that she can stay out of prison and work to pay back the restitution, this chick has already proven that she knows how to cook the books -- she would always claim that she can't pay anything back while walking fancy free. With this in mind, I completely understand the judge throwing the book at this hambeast for ruining multiple lives. Nick did what he could, but she had it coming, and the judge was pissed about the destruction left behind.This particular court's first impression of Nick happened some time ago. Jennifer Fischer is the same judge before whom he unsuccessfully defended a case a couple years ago (Case No. 34-CR-19-1198, searchable here). Some woman was accused of felony theft by swindle. Nick says the judge threw the book at her, ranting angrily about how if she can afford a lawyer, she can afford to return what she's stolen (which amounted to $386212.74). Afterwards, Nick, being the asshole who just has to get the last word in, informed the judge (literally in an elevator, if memory serves) that he was doing everything pro bono. As Nick told the story, he wasn't nice about it.
So the court's impression of Nick might very well be "a total prick" already.
Imagine. Nick just got his client locked up for 4 years, not to mention the restitution. The judged screamed at him and his client. Meanwhile, his YouTube channel is taking off. He's been thinking of basically retiring from law for years now, and now he finally has the ability to do so. The Rittenhouse trial is just 1 week away, and he's covering it. Knowing what Nick's like, does he:
• take the L, going home quietly;• tell the judge off, thinking that he'll never see her again?This isn't really a question, he told us what he did.
And now, 1.5 years later, some watermelon fucker is dragging him before that same judge as the defendant. That must chafe his balls worse than the balldo.
Its something that seems to be happening more often. The judges allow the plaintiff to get away with being incredibly vague in their initial complaint in these kind of cases and then they (the plaintiff's representation) fill in the details as the process goes on. Going for an immediate default with a half-formed complaint seems slightly unusual. But I don't think they expect the default to stand anyway.So is the lawyer leaving out the actual meat of the complaint out of the fucking complaint, and only explaining his case properly when filing for default crazy? Or crazy like a fox? In other word is it a shady trick or just sloppiness?
This is what I meant that Montagraph has learned NOTHING from his previous litigious escapades. But, that is a discussion for the lawsuit thread.So is the lawyer leaving out the actual meat of the complaint out of the fucking complaint, and only explaining his case properly when filing for default crazy? Or crazy like a fox? In other word is it a shady trick or just sloppiness?