- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
To be fair, Vic is still likeable. Nick, not so much. Unless you're a leathery wine aunt / cat mom, but I think Vic has his fair share of that crowd as well.
Steve Quest (p/k/a Montagraph) vs. Nicholas Robert Rekieta & Rekieta Law, LLC (2023)
- Thread starter Useful_Mistake
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Didn't he literally mock someone for someone's GoFundMe to pay Randazza's firm failed to make its goal?
Poetry.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
I think that was Doucette when he sued the Sons of Confederate Veterans over a DMCA strike, but Doucette is allergic to making money. He's a lawyer with a masters in computer science, he should be able to make 100k a year working part time. Instead he went 300k+ into debt running for some political office, declared bankruptcy, then failed to make his bankruptcy payments because he was too busy trying to find pro bono clients on Twitter
To be fair, he did have at least one successful gofundme where he raised $7000 out of a $3000 goal to buy a death abatement machine because he's too fat to live
To be fair, he did have at least one successful gofundme where he raised $7000 out of a $3000 goal to buy a death abatement machine because he's too fat to live
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
Yes, Randazza was representing Doucette in that travesty.
Why on earth didn't Monty's lawyer strike out the "known for hyperbole and comedy" language?
Then add that bit in?
Is Montagraph teaching his lawyer the Art of Lovemaking to a Melon that it's rotted his brain?
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Nick already lost the minute he hired an expensive lawyer like Randazza to get some LanDUI-tier complaint against him dismissed.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
This lolsuit is heating up. It just got a lot more entertaining:
Nick said he filed his response to the complaint today. He also said he would talk about the ethics complaint in more detail in his Locals exclusive stream later tonight. As of right now, I do not believe that we know the substance of the allegations in the ethics complaint filed by Schneider, but I assume this will change after the Locals stream.
Here's the clip from the start of his show tonight. He goes in pretty hard again on Monty as well.
Sorry for the stream buffering.
Nick Rekieta has disclosed near the start of his stream tonight that Monty's attorney, David Weldon Schneider, has filed an ethics complaint against him (Nick, that is).
Nick said he filed his response to the complaint today. He also said he would talk about the ethics complaint in more detail in his Locals exclusive stream later tonight. As of right now, I do not believe that we know the substance of the allegations in the ethics complaint filed by Schneider, but I assume this will change after the Locals stream.
Here's the clip from the start of his show tonight. He goes in pretty hard again on Monty as well.
Sorry for the stream buffering.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
This sounds retarded. Nick is the defendant.
Rex_857
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2021
Nick was representing himself at first. According to locals stream however when the statements were made, he had retained counsel.
Twitter Is Cancer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
To quote Rekieta, Here's the thing.
The lawyer who represents is his enemy is an actual lawyer who has won stuff. I know Rekieta hired some sooper dooper lawyer but at the end of the day Rekieta is dragging too much chain for himself to carry.
Also those bags under his eyes look like the kind fags and raped children get after they have too much anal.
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
TL;DR on the complaint:
It is premised on the fact that Nick was representing himself as an attorney (Randazza appeared before the court on the 20th) when he made the statement on the 18th.
This statement was made in a LOCALS livestream, so Monty probably clipped it and sent it to Schneider.
The statements were that Schneider was 'being a cunt' and Nick used the f-slur.
Schneider 'in 27 years of practice' has NEVER been called such a MEAN name!
The statements violate the rule on lawyers 'embarrassing, harassing, or impairing the ability of counsel to effect their duties'.
Also alleged is that 'cunt' is a sexually charged term, citing MN marriage statutes (no, really) to prove it, so this is harassment based on 'sex' as well--which is worse, somehow???
The third point is that Nick's behaviour brings shame on the fine, upstanding community of lawyers
He also drops a dry joke in the complaint that since Nose used an f-slur, that the only reason to do so is that Nick is a homo or a transvestite. LOL!
Nose says that it is BS (but we know his level of legal acumen) and that he said 'like a cunt' not calling him a cunt directly... (Wall flashbacks anyone?) He also says that he was not representing himself, but his lawyer was just not able to make an appearance until 2 days later (Hope you have documentation of that) so he was NOT representing himself--despite the fact that he was personally calling and messaging Schneider to ask for an extension...
EDIT: Typos
It is premised on the fact that Nick was representing himself as an attorney (Randazza appeared before the court on the 20th) when he made the statement on the 18th.
This statement was made in a LOCALS livestream, so Monty probably clipped it and sent it to Schneider.
The statements were that Schneider was 'being a cunt' and Nick used the f-slur.
Schneider 'in 27 years of practice' has NEVER been called such a MEAN name!
The statements violate the rule on lawyers 'embarrassing, harassing, or impairing the ability of counsel to effect their duties'.
Also alleged is that 'cunt' is a sexually charged term, citing MN marriage statutes (no, really) to prove it, so this is harassment based on 'sex' as well--which is worse, somehow???
The third point is that Nick's behaviour brings shame on the fine, upstanding community of lawyers
He also drops a dry joke in the complaint that since Nose used an f-slur, that the only reason to do so is that Nick is a homo or a transvestite. LOL!
Nose says that it is BS (but we know his level of legal acumen) and that he said 'like a cunt' not calling him a cunt directly... (Wall flashbacks anyone?) He also says that he was not representing himself, but his lawyer was just not able to make an appearance until 2 days later (Hope you have documentation of that) so he was NOT representing himself--despite the fact that he was personally calling and messaging Schneider to ask for an extension...
EDIT: Typos
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
If the Minnesota board of professional ethics can curtail a lawyer's private speech in a non-legal context then the 1A might as well just not exist.
Kopasea
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2021
I am not a lawyer, so I'm hoping any lawyers around can help me understand this order of events.
On top of that, Nick files a motion and represents himself. The plaintiff's lawyer must now assume that Nick was talking out his ass about hiring Randazza. Nick officially hires Randazza, but the plaintiff's lawyer doesn't actually know that yet. In between when Nick filed his motion and the court accepted Randazza as Nick's lawyer, Nick calls the plaintiff's lawyer a cunt in front of around 3000 people (how many he claimed had watched his video in the most recent locals stream).
It may not be technically unethical, but boy does Nick look like a real scumbag to me
- Nick announced publicly that he is being sued by Montagraph
- Nick also announced shortly thereafter he's retaining Randazza (I think he even said officially, but it's been a bit so my memory is fuzzy)
- The plaintiff's attorney doesn't communicate with Nick at all.
- Nick files a motion to give him more time representing himself.
- Nick officially sends the money to Randazza
- Nick calls plaintiff's attorney a cunt
- Randazza does the legal thing to practice in Minnesota
- Plaintiff's attorney sends in ethics complaint based on his knowledge that Nick was representing himself
On top of that, Nick files a motion and represents himself. The plaintiff's lawyer must now assume that Nick was talking out his ass about hiring Randazza. Nick officially hires Randazza, but the plaintiff's lawyer doesn't actually know that yet. In between when Nick filed his motion and the court accepted Randazza as Nick's lawyer, Nick calls the plaintiff's lawyer a cunt in front of around 3000 people (how many he claimed had watched his video in the most recent locals stream).
It may not be technically unethical, but boy does Nick look like a real scumbag to me
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
I love how petty this all is, this really has potential to hit next-tier lolsuit. If they're already spatting about this kind of shit in the preliminaries, I can only hope this goes to trial. And as we know, Nick can't stfu, so the salt from both sides will be bountiful.
Is not one of the traits of a lolcow, that the lolcow does not shut their mouth, even when it would be to their benefit? Even if not, great job, champ! You sure showed the opposition!
At this rate, the Rekietas may be driven out of "town" by an angry mob, torches and pitchforks in hand, casting down divine retribution from their stable Scandanavian high horses. If the Racketeers still went to church, I don't know how they could continue to go, what with all that shifty side eye coming from the ladies in the choir, casting judgment on those darn slatternly Rekietas.
Is not one of the traits of a lolcow, that the lolcow does not shut their mouth, even when it would be to their benefit? Even if not, great job, champ! You sure showed the opposition!
At this rate, the Rekietas may be driven out of "town" by an angry mob, torches and pitchforks in hand, casting down divine retribution from their stable Scandanavian high horses. If the Racketeers still went to church, I don't know how they could continue to go, what with all that shifty side eye coming from the ladies in the choir, casting judgment on those darn slatternly Rekietas.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
Short of actual defamation Nick can call the opposing lawyer whatever the fuck he feels like on Locals. It's not in court and it's not in a filing. Nick may be a lawyer but he's still got free speech and if the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board disagrees with that fundamental premise they're going to have a long row to hoe when they try to enforce their unconstitutional rules in court.
- Joined
- May 29, 2021
To me, its foolish and self-destructive behavior rather than scummy behavior. Representing himself at all in any context was a serious mistake. He seemed on some streams to even know that and did it anyway. Talking about his case on stream was also a serious mistake. And if he goes forward with turning the ethics complaint into streaming content on locals, he is just a fool. Its extremely risky and just a bad idea.
He was professionally and ethically extremely safe as long as he didn't mix his internet circus nonsense with his actual practice of law. But then he did just that.
He should have just handled the case quietly and hired the right people to make it go away.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2023
I agree. It's not like he couldn't have monetized it after the fact. "So I was sued by Montagraph, let's go over the documents and I'll explain what happened and just how badly he failed". Instead he really thinks he is going to turn it into a constant cash flow on the level of Depp/Rittenhouse while he shoots himself in the foot over and over in unnecessary ways. All of our criticism of his handling of this though will be brushed away as invalid when he likely wins, because if he doesn't get fucked into the dirt it means he did everything right in his mind.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Nick announced he was retaining Randazza and would be paying the retainer fee the next day. He also said he wouldn't be representing himself because he's not an idiot.
He later attempted to make contact David Weldon Schneider to ask for an extension.
Schneider ignored him. At least part of the reason for the lack of response was that Schneider was on vacation, but presumably part of it might be that Nick stated that he was retaining counsel, and it would be a potential ethics violation for Schneider to communicate with Nick if he believed him to be represented by Randazza.
Nick then filed that motion you mentioned, the same day that he turned up at Schneider's office to try to speak to him in person.
I don't know of the particular timing with respect to Nick's stream. If he directed profanities at Schneider before Randazza had been admitted pro hac vice, that's even worse look than I thought.
The idea that ethics rules only apply to what is said in filings or in court isn't true. It's not hard to find examples of attorneys facing discipline for saying rude things in emails for example, even if the email communication is only between the attorneys and not directly involving the court.
What makes this different from the previous complaints that were summarily dismissed is that it involves a discussion on his show relating to his own practice of law (in this case, representing himself).
This is similar to the previous complaint in reaction to Nick's response to the dismissed ethics complaints from last year, where the comments on Nick's show involved the ethics complaints against him. I believe last month Nick said that the OLPR had not informed him if that investigation was still open. So we don't know if that has concluded yet, it may still be live.
If they thought his actions were definitely 1A protected, they can respond with a “determination that discipline is not warranted, without investigation", in which case no response is required. AFAIK, this is what happened with the previous waves of complaints, with the exception I already described above. If OLPR sends him a Notice of Investigation, however, he's required to respond within 14 days. Nick has confirmed he's filed a response to the complaint.
According to Rule 8(a), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, the threshold for an investigation is "a reasonable belief that professional misconduct may have occurred". That said, the majority of investigations do not result in any form of discipline.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
I didn't say that, and even if it's true -- I would still say it violates the first amendment, and Nick's mentioned a while back that there's a group that's been trying to challenge the lawyers' professional rules on precisely these grounds and force them to change, with varying levels of success around the country -- it doesn't apply here. Nick wasn't directly communicating with the opposing attorney, he was talking on Locals.
They didn't. If they had dismissed the complaint without investigating, the first notice that Nick received would have said as much, and he wouldn't have had to write a response. I take that to mean they are investigating.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
I think Nick's likely to skate out of this name-calling kerfuffle with a stern warning, but I would laugh if they required him to take additional CLE and do something like 200 hours of community service, just for how ass-blasted Nick would be.
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
I seriously doubt that there will be a mob with pitchforks. By his own admission, Nick's social circle is tiny. They live in their house far away from most people and rarely go out--except for their children's activities. How many IRL friends do you think Nose can maintain with his schedule?
This is correct. He will likely get a slap on the wrist, note in the file, and some mandatory CLE. My spirit animal Chris Hook got little more than that, and he went WAY harder.