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

[SargonF00t]

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.

He should put those creative writing skills to good use and start posting erotic literature to his Locals chat.

So has Nick said anything about why he is not being represented by Randazza?

Did they knock him back as a client?

 

[AnOminous]

So has Nick said anything about why he is not being represented by Randazza?

More importantly why hasn't he responded to a complaint he's possibly defaulting on? Is that how he wants to go out?

Even just having your first filing in a case being "please excuse my default" is pathetic btw.

 

[SargonF00t]

More importantly why hasn't he responded to a complaint he's possibly defaulting on? Is that how he wants to go out?

Even just having your first filing in a case being "please excuse my default" is pathetic btw.

How are both he and Ty consistently so fucking late?

What is wrong with getting in a few days before the deadline?

 

[talk talk talk]

There is a thing called a general denial as an answer. It is rarely used by lawyers because it is the simplest kind of answer. But it is literally writing "Defendant denies the allegations in the Complaint". That is enough to prevent the default.

If he was running out of time hiring counsel (Randazza or someone else), he could have just served a single page denying the allegations in the complaint and that would suffice for an answer. Plus, with liberal amendment rules, once he got represented, he could serve and file an amended answer within 21 days of the original general denial.

Instead of that, Rackets fucking showed up at Monty's lawyer's office like a goddamn freak. He could have at least scrawled "Defendant denies the allegations in the Complaint" on a sheet of paper torn from his Big Chief tablet and left it there. That would have been enough.

 

[Kosher Salt]

More importantly why hasn't he responded to a complaint he's possibly defaulting on? Is that how he wants to go out?

Even just having your first filing in a case being "please excuse my default" is pathetic btw.

He said he's filed a motion for an extension.

 

[AnOminous]

Instead of that, Rackets fucking showed up at Monty's lawyer's office like a goddamn freak.

Wait, he did that? I admit this is showing how little attention I'm paying to this.

He said he's filed a motion for an extension.

Great idea, everyone should do that after someone files a motion for default. This sounds promising (I mean for lolcow purposes).

 

[Useful_Mistake]

He said he's filed a motion for an extension.

If he did, the court docket doesn't show it yet.

 

[Grotesque Bushes]

If the world famous small town lawyer loses by default i pledge to go through his Melinda Scott and Greer videos and edit them accordingly, so he has some sage advice on how to prevent his fuckup.

 

[Commandant Swordfish]

Oh no, Nicky may lose the Balldo™ sponsorship money for this.

Also, doesn't Montagraph have Facebook moms to argue with? Imagine being sued by a fruity alleged nonce who pretends to be a psychic and violates fruit lmao.

 

[feral cat #6385]

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.

Sounds like this is going to be a real treat. We've never seen a case with ineffectual council on both sides. And an incompetent judge. I can't wait to hear arguments over subject matter jurisdiction and groundz.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

NICK RESPONDS!

Spoiler: Images

Nick also filed a "proposed order"

Spoiler: Image

Edit:

Nick no! You can't just dogwhistle Nazi ideology!

 

[talk talk talk]

Rackets continues to be late and gay.

1. No citation to Rule 6.02, which allows this motion

When by statute, by these rules, by a notice given thereunder, or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may, at any time in its discretion. . . upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect . . ..​

2. Can't get the sworn affidavit language right. You need to identify the county where the document was signed at the end just above the signature.

3. His motion/memorandum barely touches on his excusable neglect. It's there (holidays, birthdays, travel, no knowing Schneider was out of the office) but it's not argued very strongly.

4. No motion like this is complete without a citation to Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co. It's the leading case on relief from default and allowing late answers and is chock-full of nice language. It's an old one from 1952, but it still gets used all the time.

He's still likely to win because Scheider is playing silly games, too, and judges would rather have cases tried on the merits; but he's not putting on a great show of lawyering here.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

"Defendant had multiple days of travel over the holiday and was unable to obtain counsel during the Christmas season which also includes Defendant's birthday, and one of Defendant's children's birthdays".

Transitively, Nick is asking the judge to grant an extension because he was too busy traveling to and from a gay bar underwear party to hire an attorney.

 

[Swole McPole]

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.

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

Improper if the case is before a jury and they're deciding sentence, perhaps. But during sentencing, when the greedy hog is telling the court that she shouldn't go to jug because she's 'taken responsibility' for the crimes?

I'm fine with it. She pled guilty, she admitted doing the deed. Judge is just reflecting on the character of the scumbag before she sends her down the stairs.

 

[not william stenchever]

Transitively, Nick is asking the judge to grant an extension because he was too busy traveling to and from a gay bar underwear party to hire an attorney.

I hope that Nick gets the extension granted so that the opposing lawyers can bring the gay underwear party into the legal records.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I hope that Nick gets the extension granted so that the opposing lawyers can bring the gay underwear party into the legal records.

They couldn't even if they wanted to, especially if the motion gets granted

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

@mindlessobserver

And speaking of the Federal Courts. Isn't Montagraph in Colorado? I would say there is obvious diversity jurisdiction here. There is perfect diversity between the Plaintiff (Colorado) and the named Defendants (Minnesota and Texas) . Nobody has pointed this out yet, so I may as well. If a Demurer to dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction is not filed I will eat as much crow as I can.

Oh, I haven't heard that word (demurrer) in an age. Took me back 2x years to school - my professor was blind and gave every lecture without a pause, in a beautiful old [Southern state] accent - so "demurrer" was "demur-RAH," which sounds much more pleasing than it looks.

Who's going to challenge it?


ETA: RANT TIME. Minnesota liberals don't care about this shit that causes actual harm to actual poor people.

To be fair, most people in general who do not practice law in state court don't get too in the weeds on procedural aspects of legal matters. I'd expect that initiative to come from lawyers/the bar association(s) and/or legal aid groups/similar. I'm curious, though - has anyone ever attempted to get this modified (or surveyed actual harm), do you know? Is it a case of being periodically discussed and always rejected, or just aceepted?

NICK RESPONDS!
View attachment 4283865
View attachment 4283867

Tell me he did not hyphenate "pro se." I'm not going to bother looking too much more at nits just to get irritated, but the low quality of his (minimal) paperwork shared so far in this thread is pointing to his being precisely the quality of lawyer/anything I'd eyed him to be.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

As a retard, can someone explain to me if his shitty filing would have any amount of impact of proceedings?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

As a retard, can someone explain to me if his shitty filing would have any amount of impact of proceedings?

It more or less has the very basics down to qualify for the motion. The would be from the motions denial or grant

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

Rackets continues to be late and gay.

1. No citation to Rule 6.02, which allows this motion

When by statute, by these rules, by a notice given thereunder, or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may, at any time in its discretion. . . upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect . . ..​

2. Can't get the sworn affidavit language right. You need to identify the county where the document was signed at the end just above the signature.

3. His motion/memorandum barely touches on his excusable neglect. It's there (holidays, birthdays, travel, no knowing Schneider was out of the office) but it's not argued very strongly.

4. No motion like this is complete without a citation to Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co. It's the leading case on relief from default and allowing late answers and is chock-full of nice language. It's an old one from 1952, but it still gets used all the time.

He's still likely to win because Scheider is playing silly games, too, and judges would rather have cases tried on the merits; but he's not putting on a great show of lawyering here.

lol, wouldn't it be a weird sort of irony if a sworn affidavit somehow sinks this case, like it did for weebwars? At least it isn't a notary issue this time.