- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
When you dare the universe to fuck you, it usually finds a way
Steve Quest (p/k/a Montagraph) vs. Nicholas Robert Rekieta & Rekieta Law, LLC (2023)
- Thread starter Useful_Mistake
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
TJBirish
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
What are you talking about? Who is "daring the universe" here?
I said people are stupid for thinking Randazza was serious. Are you saying he was, or wasn't?
Why is everybody talking in riddles this AM?
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
Just like the Thick Lasagna lawsuit, the defendants are making jokes about it rather than be serious. The best time to make jokes would be afterwards, because right now, even if odds are high that he'll win, Nick is metaphorically building a device that launches eggs at his face knowing full well that legal disputes do not always go the way that they should. He is daring life to fuck him in the ass, and life will take him up on that.
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it.
Keep your issues and confusion to yourself or be mocked for it.
But this is unsolicited advice... So...
TJBirish
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
Yes, Randazza was joking in his tweet. I agree.
That's ALL I was talking about.
So you don't know either.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
Randazza and Rekieta seem to be made for each other. With his history as a porn producer and his past law license issues, he seems to have found his match in a client. Publicly talking about this lawsuit is utterly nuts, but if it's what they want to do, they can do it.
Someone made a website full of receipts on Randazza (along with a lot of other chaff): https://www.corruptrandazza.com/
Archive.ph finished crunching: https://archive.ph/1HnMe
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
He didn't just suggest that, though, he straight up publicly said he'd retained Randazza.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
Which is the issue.
Incidentally, it wouldn't BE an issue if Nick would just shut the fuck up about the lawsuit he is being sued in.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
No, he straight up said he had. Before saying later he didn't.
Later he contradicted himself and claimed he hadn't yet. So when he was lying and when not, who knows?
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
I need a timeline based on actual links to when Nick said it, not just some clips channel where the clips could be out of order.
edit: apparently they're from streams on Jan. 10/11th. But Schneider's own affidavit (index #7) states that he was under the belief that Nick was as-of-yet still unrepresented.
edit 2: in Nick's motion for an extension (index #10) he says that in his email to Schneider, he requested the extension in part so that he could retain counsel. So David Schneider was clearly put on notice that Nick intended to retain counsel but had not yet done so, and Schneider was admittedly still under this impression when he filed his motion for default.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
I am compiling a video of clips of what Nick said about his representation status and when. I was about to post it last week, but Nick can't stop talking about the case, so it will have to wait until later this week for me to update the video and post it.
The short answer is that Rekieta appeared to believe he was in a "Schrödinger's client" situation and simultaneously representing himself and represented by Randazza. One of his public statements last week was that his intent in communicating with Schneider was to inform him he was represented by counsel.
It seems to me he couldn't stomach the bill Randazza would have charged for a trivial extension motion and tried to do it himself, and in so doing bumbled his way into another ethics complaint. I can see why Schneider would want to steer clear of any communication with him after he's made contradictory statements about whether or not he had retained a lawyer.
One thing I haven't seen people pick up on is that he wasn't just representing himself pro se. He was also representing Rekieta Law LLC, which as an LLC is an entity, not a person, and thus is not supposed to be able to represent itself.
Let's hope he was more consistent in his response to the ethics complaint.
Working on it, but the video on Elissa's channel says "Jan 11, 2023", before Nick filed a motion himself.
Also, all of Elissa's videos also link to their respective sources on Youtube, Locals, etc, which is what I'm using to superimpose the date of the comments.
The "I today retained, officially, Marc Randazza" quote appears to come from a stream from the previous night, based on the presence of the article from The Hill.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
According to Nick's motion for an extension, the email wasn't to inform Schneider that he was represented by counsel but rather that he was requesting an extension of time so that he could retain counsel and answer.
Luckily that video has a transcript.
vs.
These two statements contradict, but I think the clear meaning is that he had officially signed a retainer agreement, but retainer agreements aren't fully in effect until they're signed and the retainer fee is paid, and he hadn't yet paid the fee.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
My comment was based on this statement by Rekieta last week:
"He just decided to not engage in any communication with me at all. If he had communicated with me, I would have simply communicated that I was represented by counsel, given him the contact information for my counsel, and then he could communicate with Marc, rather than with me, which apparently he doesn't want to do, so that's fine."
The timeline is unclear enough that the statement could plausibly refer to before or after the motion for extension was filed. I'm concluding "before" based on the context in the previous minute of the clip and because clearly at some point not long after the extension was granted Schneider was in contact with Mark.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
That doesn't mean he was certain of it, and Nick, either through drunken inability to communicate clearly or out of playing tricksy little games, had created ambiguity about the situation. Nick has constantly contradicted himself on this and brought this on himself. Schneider is playing his own dumb games.
If this case doesn't die in its early stages it is going to be a genuine lolsuit. Two lolcows, represented by lolyers, in front of a loljudge.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
Can it be transferred to chancery so it can be held in a lolcourt?
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
Yank Chauvin out of MN prison and press him into service as a lolbailiff, and see who gets knelt on first.
Twitter Is Cancer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
I have no idea why you are trying to be joe lawyer for this two-bit incompetent drunk. Splitting hairs and using telepathy to know what Rekieta meant when he told lies is a terrible look.
This is not pedantry you're indulging in, it's cope.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
Nick has shown himself to be an unreliable narrator on many occasions. I never take anything he says very seriously for that reason. He’s economical with the truth to put it mildly.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Splitting hairs is exactly how you win dumb cases like this.