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

[he who has thus come/gone]

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.

Seriously. For all the complaints about how annoying opposing counsel has been to him and how the lawyer has been wasting his time with this default nonsense, Rekeita submitted filings that could be written up in just an hour. At least cite some case law so the judge feels confident in ruling for you--it's not necessary, but it makes you look a lot better.

I can't fully express how stupid a filing looks in chambers when the judge has to himself find and cite the on-point caselaw that one (or both) sides of a suit failed to reference. Maybe this isn't such a case, but it's bad practice to be too scanty in your filings (unless you know the sitting judge pretty well).

 

[SargonF00t]

Just remember that before his falling out with Rekieta, Ethan Ralph had said of Rekieta's lawyering abilities, "it's like he is a savant when it comes to the law".

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

Just remember that before his falling out with Rekieta, Ethan Ralph had said of Rekieta's lawyering abilities, "it's like he is a savant when it comes to the law".

Given Ralph's driving record, perhaps any small town lawyer who handles DUIs and traffic incidents would seem like a legal savant to Ralph.

 

[talk talk talk]

Montagraph v Rekieta Law: Why Nick’s filing pro se, the problem w/ Monty’s claims, & other things

Original stream https://rekietalaw.locals.com/upost/3370917/monday-night-hot-tub-time@Montagraph

www.youtube.com

So Rackets is cagy about whether he has actually retained counsel. If he has, counsel won't handle procedural issues, leaving them to Nick to fuck up.

Also of note, Rackets believes that if he served a general denial, he couldn't bring a motion to dismiss. That's just plain wrong. He could bring it as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12.03.

Looking forward to more great legal work by Rackets. He's definitely getting what he paid for.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

So Rackets is cagy about whether he has actually retained counsel. If he has, counsel won't handle procedural issues, leaving them to Nick to fuck up.

Nick's response implies he hasn't (both because he filed it pro se, and in words)

Also of note, Rackets believes that if he served a general denial, he couldn't bring a motion to dismiss. That's just plain wrong. He could bring it as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12.03.

I don't see why he doesn't file a general denial, and then amend it later, and then file a motion to dismiss.

 

[Old English Roast Beef]

Edit:
View attachment 4283894
Nick no! You can't just dogwhistle Nazi ideology!

For those not in on the joke, it stands for "scilicet" and is used to specify the place within the named area, such as "Spicer." It's usually not required and it's cargo-cult law to just write ss. without anything after it.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Montagraph v Rekieta Law: Why Nick’s filing pro se, the problem w/ Monty’s claims, & other things

Original stream https://rekietalaw.locals.com/upost/3370917/monday-night-hot-tub-time@Montagraph

www.youtube.com

So Rackets is cagy about whether he has actually retained counsel. If he has, counsel won't handle procedural issues, leaving them to Nick to fuck up.

Also of note, Rackets believes that if he served a general denial, he couldn't bring a motion to dismiss. That's just plain wrong. He could bring it as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12.03.

Looking forward to more great legal work by Rackets. He's definitely getting what he paid for.

I do find it interesting his comment about how Randazza doesn't "do Minnesota procedural issues".

If Randazza doesn't "do Minnesota procedural issues", how exactly is he supposed to represent him in a trial situation, let alone all the procedural issues that come up pre-trial? Did Nick not consider this at all before almost sending Randazza a retainer fee? Did Randazza not go through this with Nick prior to Nick being hours away from sending said fee? I also note Nick doesn't appear to be referring to him by name in this video, unless I missed it.

I do wonder if Randazza made a standing offer to represent him in any 1A-related case, thinking about the disciplinary matters and any potential defamation case (serious ones, that is), only for Rekieta to hit him up asking him to get this lolcow lolsuit dismissed for him. I'm getting the impression that Randazza may have blew him off. I don't blame him if he did, since this is below Randazza: it's at the point where even Rekieta may be able to get this thing dismissed "pro-se". I have no clue at all why he would want to be dragged into this.

I see the "is he represented or not" mystery was picked up on by Monty and made his lawyers' affidavit.

 

[mindlessobserver]

NICK RESPONDS!
View attachment 4283865
View attachment 4283867
View attachment 4283868

Spoiler: Images

View attachment 4283873
View attachment 4283876

Nick also filed a "proposed order"

Spoiler: Image

View attachment 4283879

Edit:
View attachment 4283894
Nick no! You can't just dogwhistle Nazi ideology!
View attachment 4283895

How embarrassing. No argument of authorities for this, not directly addressing the default that is already tabled by the Plaintiff. This reads like an excuse letter for not completing assigned homework. "I was too busy over Christmas to my job your honor!"

I know Pro Se filings are supposed to be given huge leeway, but does that REALLY apply when the Pro Se filing is sti done by a licensed attorney?

 

[AnOminous]

NICK RESPONDS!

Didn't Nick say publicly that he had retained counsel? Retaining counsel means paying a retainer and actually having an agreement that the attorney represent you. Either he did do that, or he is a flat-out liar.

I can't fully express how stupid a filing looks in chambers when the judge has to himself find and cite the on-point caselaw that one (or both) sides of a suit failed to reference. Maybe this isn't such a case, but it's bad practice to be too scanty in your filings (unless you know the sitting judge pretty well).

Well, odds are good a law clerk does it in a bench memo for him, but it's still absolutely pathetic motion practice. It's literally embarrassing. Doesn't he know people would see this and pick it apart?

I guess if your new gig is pimping yourself to mole-riddled skinnyfat winemoms, you don't care about the law any more, but this particular lolsuit has you as a defendant.

Does this retard not even care how embarrassing it would be to lose a lolsuit brought by a melon fucker?

I know Pro Se filings are supposed to be given huge leeway, but does that REALLY apply when the Pro Se filing is sti done by a licensed attorney?

Not as much, no. In this case, he probably gets away with "excusable neglect," or whatever language they use in Minnesota, because of the obvious shenanigans of the plaintiff, but this is a sad response.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

Does this retard not even care how embarrassing it would be to lose a lolsuit brought by a melon fucker?

Only prudish incels care about not being sued by some retarded faggot over complete bullshit.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Didn't Nick say publicly that he had retained counsel? Retaining counsel means paying a retainer and actually having an agreement that the attorney represent you. Either he did do that, or he is a flat-out liar.

My impression of his statement was that under no circumstances would he represent himself, that he reached an agreement for Randazza to represent him, and he was going to pay the retainer fee the next day.

He is now trying to weasel out of this by saying he announced his intention to pay the retainer fee, which he ended up not doing, and therefore there is no contradiction in his public statements.

He is eventually going to have to figure out whether he is going pro se, hiring Randazza, or hiring some attorney who actually practices in Minnesota, or some combination of the three. But I wouldn't hold out hopes that he will clarify what actually happened with regards to his representation status currently.

Does this retard not even care how embarrassing it would be to lose a lolsuit brought by a melon fucker?

Nick is solidly in the stage of thinking he is too big to fail at anything, so the idea that he should have spent some time successfully arranging representation or literally anything related to the case other than getting drunk on stream and whining about it for a couple minutes in between his new content of making brags a high schooler might make ("I do drugs. I have sex. Did I mention I do a LOT of drugs?") is probably foreign to him.

 

[talk talk talk]

Does Nick have any friends aside from his degenerate internet pals?

One of the things that makes solo/small practice workable is having a network of friends you can refer things to and get referrals from. People who can help you out with something you haven't seen before. People who have templates for motions they can send to you. People who will represent you in a pinch for not much money because you are part of a friends network.

I see no sign Nick has anything like that.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

One of the things that makes solo/small practice workable is having a network of friends you can refer things to and get referrals from

IIRC Nick said he had a referral system, didn't he?

 

[talk talk talk]

IIRC Nick said he had a referral system, didn't he?

He may have said that, but it looks like his referral system is a bunch of other internet dudes.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

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

See Nick should call the Judge a faggot then

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

This case is already a shit show and it has not even got to arguing about the nonsensical issues addressed by Montagraph.
Get it together, Nick!
Also, I would get the case files of Quest v. Morphonios as ammunition if I were you.

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

See Nick should call the Judge a faggot then

It worked for Chris Hook or whatever his name is

 

[Puff]

Does Nick have any friends aside from his degenerate internet pals?

One of the things that makes solo/small practice workable is having a network of friends you can refer things to and get referrals from. People who can help you out with something you haven't seen before. People who have templates for motions they can send to you. People who will represent you in a pinch for not much money because you are part of a friends network.

I see no sign Nick has anything like that.

Probably not, but he hasn't been taking new cases for quite a while now and his final case wrapped up back in the summer if I'm not mistaken, so it's kinda irrelevant.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I have to imagine Nick isn't a welcome addition to his County Bar Associations annual dinner. Some of the other attorneys may end up getting photographed with him.

 

[Spaded Dave]

NICK RESPONDS!
View attachment 4283865
View attachment 4283867
View attachment 4283868

Spoiler: Images

View attachment 4283873
View attachment 4283876

Nick also filed a "proposed order"

Spoiler: Image

View attachment 4283879

Edit:
View attachment 4283894
Nick no! You can't just dogwhistle Nazi ideology!
View attachment 4283895

In 1/10th the time and effort this took, the retard could have avoided this situation altogether.

Also, he seriously waited two weeks before even bothering to try to request an extension? Maybe there's some legal reasoning behind this that I'm unaware of but unless I'm corrected I'm going to call that supreme laziness.