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

Thomas Talus said:
This is true, otherwise cases with pro-se parties would grind completely to a halt.
Click to expand...
Thomas Talus said:
Generally, if you have reason to think that a party *might* be represented, you should proceed as if they *are* represented until told otherwise.
Click to expand...
This is 100% the case. It is not an ethical issue to deal with a pro se party directly as the opposing lawyer, but it is a huge risk to behave as though the other side is pro se when they have told you that they are looking for representation. Even sending them a direct email after they have hired a lawyer is a risk.

Lawyers are very risk-averse people, too. They will not do anything that remotely has a chance of tanking their client's case, like risking a conversation with a potentially represented opposing party without their representation being present. And no, his assurances that he is not represented would not have gotten the lawyer out of trouble if he happened to hire a lawyer while they were discussing the extension.

In general, people doing things pro se have to do them very differently than people with lawyers. You usually have to go through official channels if you want to do anything when one party is pro se. It is a huge disadvantage and gums things up. The typical back-channels just aren't open. Rekieta thought they were.

Personally, I have had a case against me dropped by representing myself and attempting to negotiate a settlement. The opposing party first learned of those offers at the first hearing, since apparently their lawyer shredded them (this is a huge no-no: settlements are a chance for your client to get their money without paying you a ton, and by hiding that the opposing party wants to settle, you are acting against your client's interests). I doubt there is a similar rule about something as mundane as extensions, though.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Twitter Is Cancer, Himedall All-seeing Waifu and break these cuffs
Owlbear said:
They will not do anything that remotely has a chance of tanking their client's case...
Click to expand...
I know you are speaking in generalities about how lawyers should act, but this line alone makes me think you haven't read a single other thread in this subforum. These are lolsuits we're talking about here. Did you ever hear the story about Ty Beard the Strategist? It's not a tale the Racketeers would tell you. It still cracks me up that Nick wore fucking sneakers the hearing. Grift a couple hundred thou for a family friend with no experience in the field, rake in a bunch of superberries from weebs looking for a dad, and he couldn't even sober up enough to go buy some shoes before court since he forgot to pack his own.

Let's not even get started on LanDUI.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Wilhelm Bittrich, Fat Gay Riker, Hraf and 2 others
Owlbear said:
In general, people doing things pro se have to do them very differently than people with lawyers. You usually have to go through official channels if you want to do anything when one party is pro se. It is a huge disadvantage and gums things up. The typical back-channels just aren't open. Rekieta thought they were.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Rekeita, the reason for the "no contact with represented parties" rule is more about protecting the party from being exploited/bamboozled by opposing counsel, and that's not as much of a concern when the party is a lawyer, or at least plays one on YT. If Nick, an active member of the bar with enforceable professional duties of candor, affirmatively represented that he was not currently represented (lol) and that future counsel would be in touch once the retainer was deposited, then I doubt there would have been an actual problem conferring regarding scheduling. But it does give the other lawyer a 100% defensible out if he wants to be difficult about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Owlbear
break these cuffs said:
I know you are speaking in generalities about how lawyers should act, but this line alone makes me think you haven't read a single other thread in this subforum. These are lolsuits we're talking about here. Did you ever hear the story about Ty Beard the Strategist? It's not a tale the Racketeers would tell you. It still cracks me up that Nick wore fucking sneakers the hearing. Grift a couple hundred thou for a family friend with no experience in the field, rake in a bunch of superberries from weebs looking for a dad, and he couldn't even sober up enough to go buy some shoes before court since he forgot to pack his own.

Let's not even get started on LanDUI.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about the Lolyer here. We're talking about the professional on the other side.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: 6thRanger, Himedall All-seeing Waifu, TJBirish and 2 others
Thomas Talus said:
To be fair to Rekeita, the reason for the "no contact with represented parties" rule is more about protecting the party from being exploited/bamboozled by opposing counsel, and that's not as much of a concern when the party is a lawyer, or at least plays one on YT. If Nick, an active member of the bar with enforceable professional duties of candor, affirmatively represented that he was not currently represented (lol) and that future counsel would be in touch once the retainer was deposited, then I doubt there would have been an actual problem conferring regarding scheduling. But it does give the other lawyer a 100% defensible out if he wants to be difficult about it.
Click to expand...
Except Nick has been playing stupid games since before the lawsuit. Even when he supposedly announced official representation he didn't do so before the court. He was all "tee hee, the court doesn't know I'm represented *wink*." Monty's lawyer has every reason to believe Nick could've been a big cunt and gone to the court "why is this guy talking to me when I'm looking for representation?!" Nick is a self admitted cunt and if this lawyer does know Nick in person then he's erring on the side of caution.
 
  • Like
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Owlbear, Spaded Dave and TJBirish
IIRC Mark was supposed to be representing him earlier, but had to get permission or whatever its called to practice in the state and it caught them at bad time, when they did not have the extension yet. So Nick had to do the first part himself, to try and get the extension while waiting for the legalities behind the scene.

But who cares. First I have no idea if that is correct in the way I understood what I heard and second, everyone on the forum believes what they want.
 
TJBirish said:
Considering the oddness of Minnesota law, what is the actual status of the lawsuit?
Click to expand...
Go back in the thread. Randazza filed something on the 14th (I think) and they put in a response and MTD. I would assume that there would be time for Schneider to respond, then setting a hearing, potentially.
 
sneedem&feedem said:
Except Nick has been playing stupid games since before the lawsuit. Even when he supposedly announced official representation he didn't do so before the court. He was all "tee hee, the court doesn't know I'm represented *wink*." Monty's lawyer has every reason to believe Nick could've been a big cunt and gone to the court "why is this guy talking to me when I'm looking for representation?!" Nick is a self admitted cunt and if this lawyer does know Nick in person then he's erring on the side of caution.
Click to expand...
If Rekieta was willing to put in writing that he was not represented at that time, and later tried to file a complaint based on the other guy speaking to a represented party, I can assure you that there would be a Reversal of Fortune on the complaint and professional sanctions against Rekieta. Again, the other guy can absolutely use the rule as a reason to not play along in this case, but Nick trying to pull the sort of game you're talking about would be even further beyond Stupid Internet Lolyer Level 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt
Mark finally had a chance to watch Nick's reading of his filing.
mar.png

 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Marvin, BBChannel, Moths and 13 others
Confetti Meringue said:
This looks like playful banter, and I hope I'm correct about that. Otherwise this is becoming an even larger mess in record time.
Click to expand...
Is this the Ty Bears strategy of Sun Tzu'ing your enemy so hard into thinking you are retarded by ACTUALLY becoming retarded?

Find out next time on Kinksplaining the Interwebs!

Seriously, this sounds like grandstanding that will get a winnable case into trouble... I do not believe Nick is taking it seriously. Nick, you cannot outgrift your loss in a lawsuit of of wine moms.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Uncle Buck
  • Like
  • Optimistic
  • Autistic
Reactions: Hongourable Madisha, FreshFoods, Terrifik and 4 others
It's telling that Randazza took to Twitter to tell his client to shut the fuck up. If his client had better emotional maturity than an average 5-year-old, he would be able to have a phone call or send him a text message instead.

On the plus side, I'm excited to see the first bill Nick gets now that his lawyer has to have an associate watch his streams in their entirety.
 
  • Autistic
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Terrifik, Kosher Salt, Dixieland Buckaroo and 1 other person
Owlbear said:
It's telling that Randazza took to Twitter to tell his client to shut the fuck up. If his client had better emotional maturity than an average 5-year-old, he would be able to have a phone call or send him a text message instead.

On the plus side, I'm excited to see the first bill Nick gets now that his lawyer has to have an associate watch his streams in their entirety.
Click to expand...
Bigger question: who is the unfortunate soul that is watching Montagraph's videos?
 
  • Horrifying
  • DRINK!
  • Winner
Reactions: Wilhelm Bittrich, Fat Gay Riker, Terrifik and 2 others
Kosher Salt said:
If the court feels like there is sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction on the charges, it could be really salty about the prosecution dropping charges. And yes, the court would technically have the ability to deny the MTD, but that'd probably happen even less often than you see ethical prosecutors dropping charges that would be unjust.
Click to expand...
When Kim Foxx corruptly dismissed charges against Jussie Smollett, the court appointed a special prosecutor who then went on to prosecute him successfully. That decision fell well within an "abuse of discretion" standard. I think the appeal is pending.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Moths, Hraf and Kosher Salt
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: ConSluttant, 6thRanger, Harvey Danger and 7 others
Thomas Talus said:
Generally, if you have reason to think that a party *might* be represented, you should proceed as if they *are* represented until told otherwise.
Click to expand...
Especially if the party is a lawyer who also tends to engage in faggotry. I’d love to see Quest given the electric chair but his lawyer made the right call here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6thRanger and Owlbear
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back