Steve Quest (p/k/a Montagraph) vs. Nicholas Robert Rekieta & Rekieta Law, LLC (2023)

[AnyballLecter]

Yeah it's a lawsuit, but he did hire real lawyers.

From O.P.:

Montagraph is being represented in this case by David Weldon Schneider of Schneider & Madsen, P.C.

If you have no specific citations as to what was falsely say, the complaint is facially deficient. If he asks, he probably will get a chance to amend the complaint.

Thanks. I suspected something like this but don't know the lawyer-speak.

But lawyers should be punished for not dismissing LOLSuits from potential clients. They should be the first layer of protection and refuse nuisance cases. Courts and the licensing bodies are contributing to this corruption in our society by tolerating this.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Yeah it's a lawsuit, but he did hire real lawyers.

He should fire them. They are terrible. Some drunken fuck called you a pedo and you can't fucking make a prima facie defamation per se complaint that could survive a pre-trial motion to dismiss? Fire them. And don't pay them either. What are they gonna do? Go to court? Clearly they can't fucking write a decent complaint to save their lives.

They should be the first layer of protection and refuse nuisance cases. Courts and the licensing bodies are contributing to this corruption in our society by tolerating this.

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:


(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 (b) (1)

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other document, an attorney or self-represented litigant is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(a) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11.02 (a)

 

[AnyballLecter]

He should fire them. They are terrible. Some drunken fuck called you a pedo and you can't fucking make a prima facie defamation per se complaint that could survive a pre-trial motion to dismiss? Fire them. And don't pay them either. What are they gonna do? Go to court? Clearly they can't fucking write a decent complaint to save their lives.

I like you.

 

[AnOminous]

But lawyers should be punished for not dismissing LOLSuits from potential clients.

Only if it's patently frivolous. Some of what Nick said probably does present a colorable claim especially if not rebutted. What is unforgivable about this amateurish complaint is it absolutely fails to plead the cause of action competently. It's the kind of low-tier shit I expect of Russell Greer, who would probably have done a better job.

This clown should be embarrassed to have filed this.

Clearly they can't fucking write a decent complaint to save their lives.

Or possibly worse, not only don't know defamation has a heightened pleading standard, but didn't even bother looking it up. Apparently Minnesota is a notice pleading state, so why he'd make that mistake is obvious, but he should know there are exceptions to that general rule and defamation is one of the most obvious.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It's the kind of low-tier shit I expect of Russell Greer, who would probably have done a better job.

Heavy disagree. Russ, by what I can only pressume was divine intervention, managed to plead this worse. Remember, one of the things he plead that Null went on Nick's stream, and he didn't know if Null said anything, but if he did it must have been defamatory. Also, he stated that somewhere in his thread (where he doesn't know) Null said that Russ stalks women.

 

[talk talk talk]

Since it is a legal holiday, I have been entertaining myself pulling the available files where Rackets was the attorney of record.

I don't think I would hire Rackets. That is a statement of my opinion.

A couple highlights:

1. In State v. Daniel, his sentencing memorandum has the outline headings, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Yes, he is not imaginative enough to come up with something other than IRAC.

2. In Loen v. State Bank of Danvers , he represented a foreclosed former homeowner. He missed a hearing for a motion HE BROUGHT about cutting off the utilities and had to beg to have his client relieved of a partial default. The caption of his "correspondence" is a mess:


3. In the same case, his complaint is all kinds of fucked up. He uses plaintiff and petitioner interchangeably, he starts like an affidavit, but drifts out of the first person and into the third person (and has no verification by the client), has a stray date, has the same fucked up caption as in his "correspondence"



4. He can't even be assed to dummy up some letterhead. Shit, Word is full of templates. It's not like you have the world's busiest practice, Rackets. Spend half an hour and you have some fake-ass letterhead so you look professional instead of looking like a schmuck.

 

[Mikoyan]

Since it is a legal holiday, I have been entertaining myself pulling the available files where Rackets was the attorney of record.

I don't think I would hire Rackets. That is a statement of my opinion.

A couple highlights:

1. In State v. Daniel, his sentencing memorandum has the outline headings, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Yes, he is not imaginative enough to come up with something other than IRAC.

2. In Loen v. State Bank of Danvers , he represented a foreclosed former homeowner. He missed a hearing for a motion HE BROUGHT about cutting off the utilities and had to beg to have his client relieved of a partial default. The caption of his "correspondence" is a mess:

View attachment 4279035
3. In the same case, his complaint is all kinds of fucked up. He uses plaintiff and petitioner interchangeably, he starts like an affidavit, but drifts out of the first person and into the third person (and has no verification by the client), has a stray date, has the same fucked up caption as in his "correspondence"

View attachment 4279039

4. He can't even be assed to dummy up some letterhead. Shit, Word is full of templates. It's not like you have the world's busiest practice, Rackets. Spend half an hour and you have some fake-ass letterhead so you look professional instead of looking like a schmuck.

Reading the memorandum and seeing the outcome, I can imagine maybe he stopped caring about the trainwreck that Ms. Daniel represented.

Jokes aside, this is a great critique.

 

[AnOminous]

Reading the memorandum and seeing the outcome, I can imagine maybe he stopped caring about the trainwreck that Ms. Daniel represented.

Jokes aside, this is a great critique.

I'm not terribly impressed with the judge either. Complaining that the defendant took a plea deal instead of just pleading guilty to everything creates the impression the judge punished the defendant for taking a plea deal. If that was a normal practice, nobody would take one.

And if Nick was telling the truth, the judge even criticized the defendant for having a lawyer.

Both of those things are pretty grossly improper.

“You didn’t even plead guilty to all the things you were accused of. You have not taken full responsibility, but you will,” Fischer said before pronouncing the sentences.

How the fuck is it proper to say something like this from the bench?

 

[talk talk talk]

How the fuck is it proper to say something like this from the bench?

"Have you had your judicial officer checked for Black Robe Fever? It's more common than you think!"

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

How the fuck is it proper to say something like this from the bench?

I'm no lawyer or legal expert, but how the fuck wasn't this a "you didn't respond to all accusations, your paperwork is invalid, resubmit"?

 

[Thomas Talus]

Question 2: Is that a proper defamation complaint - shouldn't they include specific transcripts as evidence, or does that only come later in a hearing?

As AnOminous mentioned, Minnesota is a notice-pleading state, and only requires general claims of the facts rather than the specifics. Even under fact pleading, you don't have to include exhibits to demonstrate the facts you are claiming, just more detailed and specific descriptions of what you are alleging occurred.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm no lawyer or legal expert, but how the fuck wasn't this a "you didn't respond to all accusations, your paperwork is invalid, resubmit"?

This was during sentencing after a duly accepted guilty plea.

As AnOminous mentioned, Minnesota is a notice-pleading state, and only requires general claims of the facts rather than the specifics.

Defamation, though, requires specific pleading. You can't just generally allege you were defamed. There are other causes that require such pleading, like conspiracy (especially under Iqbal/Twombly which Minnesota I believe has declined to adopt).

 

[talk talk talk]

From some old memo:

​

“Minnesota law has generally required that in defamation suits, the defamatory matter be set out verbatim.” Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co., 620 N.W.2d 321, 326 (Minn. 2000). "Minnesota law requires that a claim for defamation must be pled with a certain degree of specificity. At a minimum, the plaintiff must allege who made the allegedly libelous statements, to whom they were made, and where." Pope v. ESA Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 1001, 1011 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Where “the complaint contains no specific facts relating to [a party’s defamation claim] . . . the proper course is dismissal of these claims.” Id.​

​

 

[Balldo's Gate]

I just realized that Judge Jennifer Fischer, Montagraph's lawyer David Weldon Schneider, and Nick Rekieta are all graduates of William Mitchell College of Law.

I sure hope that Nick's ability as an attorney is well below the average quality of graduates from William Mitchell, or else this case will be a total shitshow.

 

[AnOminous]

I just realized that Judge Jennifer Fischer, Montagraph's lawyer David Weldon Schneider, and Nick Rekieta are all graduates of William Mitchell College of Law.

That's promising. We can expect incredible levels of buffoonery from both parties, their lawyers, and from the bench itself. Sort of like a Vic case but without giving a single solitary fuck who wins or loses.

Also this isn't just based on speculation, but on how Nick has handled the case so far, and how he has handled previous motion practice (poorly as @talk talk talk pointed out), how the judge has handled previous cases (specifically one of Nick's clients) and how the idiot currently representing Montagraph, also an idiot, has performed so far in this case.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Since it is a legal holiday, I have been entertaining myself pulling the available files where Rackets was the attorney of record.

I don't think I would hire Rackets. That is a statement of my opinion.

A couple highlights:

1. In State v. Daniel, his sentencing memorandum has the outline headings, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Yes, he is not imaginative enough to come up with something other than IRAC.

2. In Loen v. State Bank of Danvers , he represented a foreclosed former homeowner. He missed a hearing for a motion HE BROUGHT about cutting off the utilities and had to beg to have his client relieved of a partial default. The caption of his "correspondence" is a mess:

View attachment 4279035
3. In the same case, his complaint is all kinds of fucked up. He uses plaintiff and petitioner interchangeably, he starts like an affidavit, but drifts out of the first person and into the third person (and has no verification by the client), has a stray date, has the same fucked up caption as in his "correspondence"

View attachment 4279039

4. He can't even be assed to dummy up some letterhead. Shit, Word is full of templates. It's not like you have the world's busiest practice, Rackets. Spend half an hour and you have some fake-ass letterhead so you look professional instead of looking like a schmuck.

Wasn't Nick a creative writing major? But even a B.A. in bullshit couldn't help him learn (or remember) to actually write competently.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

That's promising. We can expect incredible levels of buffoonery from both parties

Montagraph skullfucks watermelons.
If he does not clown himself during this process, I'll be surprised. As for Schneider, the more interactions he has with Montagraph, the more he'll realize "The hell did I get myself into?" That's if he is not a Landau tier lawyer.
As for Nick, well, he's not off to a great start.

 

[AnOminous]

1. In State v. Daniel, his sentencing memorandum has the outline headings, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Yes, he is not imaginative enough to come up with something other than IRAC.

I've never seen a memorandum actually using IRAC directly. Had he never written an actual one before? These are general principles, not something actually to do.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

3. In the same case, his complaint is all kinds of fucked up. He uses plaintiff and petitioner interchangeably, he starts like an affidavit, but drifts out of the first person and into the third person (and has no verification by the client), has a stray date, has the same fucked up caption as in his "correspondence"

I just saw this.

I can't get over the basic grammatical errors (lack of periods after sentences, stray "3. Respondent").

But the lawyer for the bank probably didn't think they would have to write that this.

 

[Phony Chicken]

I just saw this.

I can't get over the basic grammatical errors (lack of periods after sentences, stray "3. Respondent").

But the lawyer for the bank probably didn't think they would have to write that this.

View attachment 4282045

How embarrassing.