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

[Spaded Dave]

"Oh he represented a terrible person and got them a good plea deal!"

Yeah, that's called being a FUCKING LAWYER, that's what they're SUPPOSED TO DO, and the rest of the lawyers would understand this.

He did so pro bono because of a personal connection he had with the person. He can absolutely be judged for such a decision as it is going above and beyond the requirements of a lawyer to defend a scumbag thief for free because they are your buddy. I don't know why you get so upset when people criticize Nick and his gaggle of goons but you really should consider caring about 10% less that people have opinions you don't like.

Edit: Or just be a salty faggot about it I guess. It gives irony to your username at least. Lol.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Edit: Or just be a salty faggot about it I guess. It gives irony to your username at least. Lol.

Nah, I actually got a mild chuckle out of your post because I expected it to be dumb and about halfway through it I suddenly went "actually this whiny little bitch is MATI."

Sure lawyers can represent criminal scum but how dare he do it for FREE!

Lol dude you take this too seriously.

 

[TJBirish]

@Himedall All-seeing Waifu It's possible that Nick's defense of that one woman, who stole a bunch of money from a local business, could have caused the ill will to develop.

What an utterly stupid thing to say. Defense attorneys in every jurisdiction in the country do that every day of the year because it's their job. If what you say is true there should be boatloads of people accused of horrible crimes all over the country unable to find representation because it would ruin reputations.

How fucking broken are you people?

FFS just stop.

 

[Spaded Dave]

Nah, I actually got a mild chuckle out of your post because I expected it to be dumb and about halfway through it I suddenly went "actually this whiny little bitch is MATI."

Sure lawyers can represent criminal scum but how dare he do it for FREE!

Lol dude you take this too seriously.

All I'm saying is that it's fair for people to have an opinion that defending someone pro-bono involves some level of cosigning either the person or their behavior. If that's a bridge too far for you that's fine. Chuckle away, Sargon.

What an utterly stupid thing to say. Defense attorneys in every jurisdiction in the country do that every day of the year because it's their job. If what you say is true there should be boatloads of people accused of horrible crimes all over the country unable to find representation because it would ruin reputations.

How fucking broken are you people?

FFS just stop.

Himedall is discussing potential souring of the opinions of people in his local area. It is entirely fair to think that if this was a high profile case in a small local area that people could potentially have ill will towards people involved. I didn't see them saying that this was something that was warranted, just that small town gossip is in fact a thing.

 

[Kosher Salt]

What an utterly stupid thing to say. Defense attorneys in every jurisdiction in the country do that every day of the year because it's their job. If what you say is true there should be boatloads of people accused of horrible crimes all over the country unable to find representation because it would ruin reputations.

Not only this, but they're actually supposed to do a certain amount of pro bono work each year.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

He got her a plea deal that involved to fessing to significantly less than the entire amount that she was facing.

The overwhelming majority of cases result in a plea. I see no reason to believe that Nick secured a better plea bargain than a replacement level public defender, and a lot of reasons to believe that that's not the case.

That's what the judge was so pissed off about... she thought the thieving bitch should've got nailed way harder than the plea deal that Nick got her.

"Oh he represented a terrible person and got them a good plea deal!"

I don't know if that's an accurate characterization of what happened.

What happened is that there was a plea deal where the prosecution recommended a sentence of 49 months under the guidelines, and the judge sentenced her to 49 months.

IIRC, Nick wrote a 20-something page document asking for her to be sentenced to probation because she found out her husband was gay, complete with character references from her church friends. Remember, according to the victims, they were victimized to the tune of $600,000 to $800,000, though the amount she was sentenced to pay in restitution was about half that.

I think that if Judge Fischer was pissed off about anything, it was the absurdity of counsel for someone convicted of embezzlement on such a scale would even think of asking for no jail time. I wouldn't be surprised if she made clear that the motion Nick filed had worth only as a substitute for toilet paper. But remember we only have a couple sentences of what Judge Fischer actually said at sentencing transcribed in news articles and the rest of our impression comes from Nick ranting about her on the Internet.

And we're discussing Nick getting slapped with an ethics complaint because he got drunk and ranted about an attorney on the Internet, an attorney who was representing some lolcow Nick is getting sued by because Nick got drunk and ranted about him on the Internet. The ethics complaint is being investigated by the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, an entity Nick has gotten drunk and ranted about on the Internet, and the lawsuit is being presided over by Judge Fischer, who Nick has also ranted about on the Internet.

There comes a point where I'm not going to take his word at face value anymore.

 

[TJBirish]

Not only this, but they're actually supposed to do a certain amount of pro bono work each year.

View attachment 4550953

Or, if he didn't take the case, and she couldn't afford representation, someone else from the local bar may have been chosen to take up the slack.

 

[WTBOnlineFather]

All I'm saying is that it's fair for people to have an opinion that defending someone pro-bono involves some level of cosigning either the person or their behavior

For people who don't know shit about lawyers and imagine it's just like the movies, sure.

 

[Kosher Salt]

The overwhelming majority of cases result in a plea. I see no reason to believe that Nick secured a better plea bargain than a replacement level public defender, and a lot of reasons to believe that that's not the case.

I don't know if that's an accurate characterization of what happened.

What happened is that there was a plea deal where the prosecution recommended a sentence of 49 months under the guidelines, and the judge sentenced her to 49 months.

Regarding it being Nick's point of view: sure, naturally. That's all we have to go on, so take it with however large a grain of salt you feel is justified.

And I agree, there's no particular reason to think that Nick got a better plea deal than any other defense lawyer could've done. I mean, obviously the prosecution was amicable to the deal. But the impression I got was that Nick felt like the judge was pissed off that the prosecution had even let her plea out of so many of the counts that she'd been facing, and felt like 49 months wasn't nearly enough time (which may very well be true; he's said that she's out now, she was able to get early release on a fraction of the time).

The fact that she'd stole the better part of a million bucks over the years doesn't mean that she wasn't broke though. Quite the opposite, this was a case of stealing a little here and a little there precisely because she was.

 

[TJBirish]

For people who don't know shit about lawyers and imagine it's just like the movies, sure.

Or have never been around a courtroom in a small town.

 

[Spaded Dave]

For people who don't know shit about lawyers and imagine it's just like the movies, sure.

Or have never been around a courtroom in a small town.

Well we are discussing the preconceived opinions the people in Nick's local area might have towards him. You guys have effectively described 99.9% of them. So...yeah. Not seeing the conflict between this and what Strix/Himedall said.

 

[TJBirish]

Well we are discussing the preconceived opinions the people in Nick's local area might have towards him. You guys have effectively described 99.9% of them. So...yeah. Not seeing the conflict between this and what Strix/Himedall said.

Do you think there are any other places in the country where attorneys have issues with judges they see constantly in court? Or have issues with other attorneys? You're saying these things like they mean something.

 

[Thomas Talus]

He got her a plea deal that involved to fessing to significantly less than the entire amount that she was facing. That's what the judge was so pissed off about... she thought the thieving bitch should've got nailed way harder than the plea deal that Nick got her.

Unless MN rules are very different than my jurisdiction, judges don't have to follow plea deals they don't like. Not doing so can result in more cases before that judge being taken to trial if lawyers/defendants know the judge has a habit of rejecting plea deals, but the judge can hand down anything within the sentencing guidelines after the defendant has entered their guilty plea.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Unless MN rules are very different than my jurisdiction, judges don't have to follow plea deals they don't like. Not doing so can result in more cases before that judge being taken to trial if lawyers/defendants know the judge has a habit of rejecting plea deals, but the judge can had down anything within the sentencing guidelines after the defendant has entered their guilty plea.

Well a bunch of the charges were dropped in exchange for the plea, and while technically the prosecution can only drop the charges with the court's permission, that is more or less a formality... what's the judge going to do, force the prosecution to bring a case on charges that they don't want to bring, when the defendant was willing to enter a guilty plea for the other charges?

Then once the charges are dropped, the judge is kinda limited on the sentencing by the charges that actually remain.

 

[Thomas Talus]

technically the prosecution can only drop the charges with the court's permission

As the State is the Plaintiff, they can just file a notice of dismissal at any time before they rest their case at trial, and the court is required to go through with it.

Then once the charges are dropped, the judge is kinda limited on the sentencing by the charges that actually remain.

There's plenty of wiggle room before you hit the actual max sentences; most people only serve a small fraction of that. Plus, if there were charges stemming from wholly separate events, those can be run consecutively rather than concurrently.

 

[Kosher Salt]

As the State is the Plaintiff, they can just file a notice of dismissal at any time before they rest their case at trial, and the court is required to go through with it.

What I meant is that after the state has brought some charges (filed them), they have to file a motion to dismiss in order to drop them... technically the court could deny this motion, but then nobody would be happy.

If the charges haven't been filed yet, though, then sure, the state could abandon them without the court having any say in the matter.

 

[Thomas Talus]

What I meant is that after the state has brought some charges (filed them), they have to file a motion to dismiss in order to drop them... technically the court could deny this motion, but then nobody would be happy.

Rule 30.Dismissal​

Rule 30.01By Prosecutor​

The prosecutor may dismiss a complaint or tab charge without the court's approval, and may dismiss an indictment with the court's approval. The prosecutor must state the reasons for the dismissal in writing or on the record. In felony cases, if the dismissal is on the record, it must be transcribed and filed.

Comment - Rule 30

According to State v. Aubol, 309 Minn. 323, 244 N.W.2d 636 (1976), leave to dismiss an indictment must be granted if the prosecutor has provided a factual basis for the insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, and the court is satisfied that the prosecutor has not abused prosecutorial discretion.

 

[Kosher Salt]

@Thomas Talus "and if the court is satisfied that the prosecutor has not abused prosecutorial discretion [by dropping the charges]."

Which, to be sure, is a pretty high standard for the court to find justification to deny a prosecutor's MTD.

 

[Thomas Talus]

@Thomas Talus "and if the court is satisfied that the prosecutor has not abused prosecutorial discretion [by dropping the charges]."

Which, to be sure, is a pretty high standard for the court to find justification to deny a prosecutor's MTD.

That also only applies if there has been a felony indictment. If the charges were misdemeanors, the judge has no discretion to deny.

 

[talk talk talk]

Almost nothing is charged in MN via indictment. Just murder one and the occasional cop when the county attorney doesn't want that heat.