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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Twitter Is Cancer said:
OK but this is not that. Trying to say "this is what Rekieta meant to say" etc. is just cope. Rekieta is a sneaky lying jew and he blatantly lied about retaining Randazza. He hadn't done anything of the kind when he bloviated on his stream.
Click to expand...
Bitch he's not actually a Jew and quit losing your mind pretending an actual court is going to lose its mind and rule against him because he's a Jew, which he isn't. "Court rules against Jew because he has a big nose and that's because Internet REE."

Holy Christ get a grip on yourself.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Feels
Reactions: Wilhelm Bittrich, kcbbq, 6thRanger and 7 others
AnOminous said:
Bitch he's not actually a Jew and quit losing your mind pretending an actual court is going to lose its mind and rule against him because he's a Jew, which he isn't. "Court rules against Jew because he has a big nose and that's because Internet REE."

Holy Christ get a grip on yourself.
Click to expand...
Steve Quest is an internet Gem, sure he is a skitzocow, but he is out there calling up leaders on stream for the LuLz, asking real questions about TPTB to a loyal audience, rather than selling Balldo's to degenerates or LOLsuits to Weebs. Rekieta is going to loose this one, The New World Order Soldier don't Scur.....
 
  • Like
  • Autistic
  • Agree
Reactions: some racist username, Fascist Kirk (YouRWinner), Fascist Kirk (Oops429) and 8 others
AnOminous said:
Splitting hairs is exactly how you win dumb cases like this.
Click to expand...
Where we're going laws don't apply. If this goes to a jury the most hateable person is going to lose regardless of what the law says. In liberal Minnesota I don't see how Rekieta wins that.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Ged!
Smh.....

For any daily viewers of Nick's shows, you will or should have heard this.

He retained Randazza on the day he said he had, they ran into a snag and Randazza had to get special permissions to practice in Minnesota, so there was then a delay before Randazza could OFFICIALLY represent Nick in Minnesota, and they did not yet have the extension because he didn't have a lawyer who was able to represent him in Minnesota, so Nick had to pitch hit, due to the lateness of everything and closing in on the deadline to get the deadline, to which opposing counsel was avoiding. Now this is probably due to the opposing counsel being under assumption that he had retained counsel and knowing its not good idea to meet with the other party without counsel.

Basically it was a mess of date and times and because not only is Nick a public figure, he is openly talking about it, making things more confusing when the opposing party is getting what they think is legit info from this public forum of his live streams.

At the end of the day, I can only think what matters, is when counsel was officially hired. Which.....is all hearsay based on Nick's live streams right now. I mean are those records public? I bet not.

I mean with a guy that streams at least 4 hours a day and sometimes as much as 12-13 hours, its hard as fuck to follow, and people here are using clips channels as the fact finders. Smh.

I am not saying any of this is correct or lawful, who the fuck knows, I am just saying, people are missing that context. If I am not mistaken, it was all on the livestream he did about the case specifically and the following local stream, as he was answering questions from chat.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Terrifik
Imagine the retarded case law precedent set if monty does win id imagine itd change the standard required to meet defamation in minnesota entirely
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bad Gateway 502
feral cat #6385 said:
If this goes to a jury the most hateable person is going to lose regardless of what the law says. In liberal Minnesota I don't see how Rekieta wins that.
Click to expand...
Have you actually seen or heard this Montagraph degenerate? He’s one of the most disturbing individuals I’ve seen online and that’s saying something. Nick is fucking annoying and a degenerate in his own right, but he’s got nothing on Monty here.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Cat Menagerie, 6thRanger, Rainbow Idiot and 5 others
Nick spent some of his latest LOCALS stream talking about how criticism of his talking about the legal case was stupid. It was more cogent than his previous rantings, but it still sounds stupid. He outlined what seemed like good legal defences (1A, jokes, and truth) but I think that Nick's legal skills are in question...
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: UncleTusky, Owlbear, Balldo's Gate and 2 others
feral cat #6385 said:
Where we're going laws don't apply. If this goes to a jury the most hateable person is going to lose regardless of what the law says. In liberal Minnesota I don't see how Rekieta wins that.
Click to expand...
Unless he fucks a melon. . .with his BALLS. . .he should be okay. I'm not sure he isn't going to do that on stream though.
Rex_857 said:
At the end of the day, I can only think what matters, is when counsel was officially hired. Which.....is all hearsay based on Nick's live streams right now. I mean are those records public? I bet not.
Click to expand...
No, the issue is when opposing counsel should reasonably have been aware of when the opposing party was represented by counsel. If he didn't know, because of Nick's drunken self-contradictory statements, he should have reasonably adhered to the ethical rule requiring that lawyers do not directly contact represented opposing parties, bypassing their lawyers.

Nick was bitching that Schneider did not respond to his direct contacts, when the ethics rule regarding that said he wasn't allowed to do that if Nick was represented, which Nick had publicly claimed.

Whatever other retardation I have seen Schneider commit, he obeyed the ethics rule, and the reason he had to was Nick's own bogus claims. Also if Nick HAD been telling the truth about having officially claimed he had retained Randazza, Schneider would have been even MORE correct to refuse direct contact.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6thRanger, Owlbear, Balldo's Gate and 2 others
Rex_857 said:
Smh.....

For any daily viewers of Nick's shows, you will or should have heard this.

He retained Randazza on the day he said he had, they ran into a snag and Randazza had to get special permissions to practice in Minnesota, so there was then a delay before Randazza could OFFICIALLY represent Nick in Minnesota, and they did not yet have the extension because he didn't have a lawyer who was able to represent him in Minnesota, so Nick had to pitch hit, due to the lateness of everything and closing in on the deadline to get the deadline, to which opposing counsel was avoiding. Now this is probably due to the opposing counsel being under assumption that he had retained counsel and knowing its not good idea to meet with the other party without counsel.

Basically it was a mess of date and times and because not only is Nick a public figure, he is openly talking about it, making things more confusing when the opposing party is getting what they think is legit info from this public forum of his live streams.

At the end of the day, I can only think what matters, is when counsel was officially hired. Which.....is all hearsay based on Nick's live streams right now. I mean are those records public? I bet not.

I mean with a guy that streams at least 4 hours a day and sometimes as much as 12-13 hours, its hard as fuck to follow, and people here are using clips channels as the fact finders. Smh.

I am not saying any of this is correct or lawful, who the fuck knows, I am just saying, people are missing that context. If I am not mistaken, it was all on the livestream he did about the case specifically and the following local stream, as he was answering questions from chat.
Click to expand...
The timing and substance of Nick's statements as to when he retained counsel appears to be generally well understood in this thread.

Randazza did not file a motion for admission pro hac vice until January 19th, the day after the extension requested by Nick was granted. Admission was granted the next day. This suggests Randazza could have filed for admission pro hac vice earlier in January and filed the motion for extension without issue. MN court rules also allow for out-of-state lawyers to file urgent motions on the understanding that they will file for admission pro hac vice later. I suspect the judge would have considered a motion for extension in a case that would otherwise be defaulted as sufficiently urgent. Also, I don't believe there's any ethical violation from Randazza emailing Schneider himself before obtaining pro hac vice status and ask to come to an agreement on an extension to allow him time to do whatever he needed to do, including filing the pro hac vice motion. There's no indication that he did so that I am aware of.

It should be noted that Nick appears to have latched onto Randazza's need to be admitted pro hac vice as an excuse recently, within the last two weeks. He had previously stated in January that he had not sent the retainer fee at the time he indicated he would and therefore the world should assume he was still representing himself. He said that he had hired Randazza for his expertise on 1A law and that he could handle the MN procedural issues himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Puppet clogged brain, Twitter Is Cancer and Owlbear
Rex_857 said:
He retained Randazza on the day he said he had, they ran into a snag and Randazza had to get special permissions to practice in Minnesota, so there was then a delay before Randazza could OFFICIALLY represent Nick in Minnesota, and they did not yet have the extension because he didn't have a lawyer who was able to represent him in Minnesota, so Nick had to pitch hit, due to the lateness of everything and closing in on the deadline to get the deadline, to which opposing counsel was avoiding. Now this is probably due to the opposing counsel being under assumption that he had retained counsel and knowing its not good idea to meet with the other party without counsel.
Click to expand...
Due to the past issues with Randazza's license, he has had issues with Pro Hac Vice admissions in the past, recently in the Alex Jones trial. Alex Jones hired him, then his motion to appear Pro Hac Vice was denied, so Alex Jones had to hire someone else. I think he replaced Randazza with Norm Pattis, which was probably a good switch (swapping the porn lawyer for the lawyer who made his name defending protesting hippies), but I could be wrong about which lawyer replaced him.
Balldo's Gate said:
Randazza did not file a motion for admission pro hac vice until January 19th, the day after the extension requested by Nick was granted. Admission was granted the next day. This suggests Randazza could have filed for admission pro hac vice earlier in January and filed the motion for extension without issue. MN court rules also allow for out-of-state lawyers to file urgent motions on the understanding that they will file for admission pro hac vice later. I suspect the judge would have considered a motion for extension in a case that would otherwise be defaulted as sufficiently urgent. Also, I don't believe there's any ethical violation from Randazza emailing Schneider himself before obtaining pro hac vice status and ask to come to an agreement on an extension to allow him time to do whatever he needed to do, including filing the pro hac vice motion. There's no indication that he did so that I am aware of.
Click to expand...
As far as I can put together, I think the sequence of events goes:
  1. Nick contacts Randazza to hire him around early December
  2. Randazza sends back the engagement letter, including the retainer amount
  3. Nick thinks, "holy shit that's a lot of money, I need a gofundme"
  4. Due to backlash over the car purchases, locals deal, and other bragging he has done, Nick doesn't do the gofundme, and instead starts to sell some securities or property or starts to get a loan to cover the retainer fee
  5. Nick can't do step 4 very quickly because all the buyers/lenders are on vacation, so he discovers he needs an extension in order to meet his court deadlines
  6. Nick "tries his hardest" to get the extension (through informal channels only, of course - a filing would be actual work)
  7. January rolls around and the deadline comes, with Nick still having not paid the retainer
  8. Everyone gets back from vacation, and Nick finally secures the money he tried to get in step 4
  9. Nick pays the retainer around January 10-15, completing the process of hiring Randazza
  10. Randazza files for admission Pro Hac Vice on Jan 19
If this timeline is correct, that means that Nick was stochastically represented by Randazza in the time between the engagement letter was sent and the retainer was paid. Crucially, Nick could have signed the engagement letter any time after step 2, and probably signed it before securing the money for the retainer. The contract would likely say that it wouldn't have actually gone into effect until he paid the money, but these kinds of contracts are weird because they are necessarily between a sophisticated party (a lawyer) and a layperson - also, I know Nick is a lawyer, but Randazza wouldn't rewrite his engagement letter just because the counterparty happens to be legally sophisticated in this instance.

Also, the delay isn't because atheist workaholic Marc Randazza is taking a Christmas vacation, it's because there is a third party here that is giving Nick money, who is not an atheist workaholic (which makes a lot more sense).
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Fat Gay Riker, Puppet clogged brain, 6thRanger and 6 others
Owlbear said:
Due to the past issues with Randazza's license, he has had issues with Pro Hac Vice admissions in the past, recently in the Alex Jones trial. Alex Jones hired him, then his motion to appear Pro Hac Vice was denied, so Alex Jones had to hire someone else. I think he replaced Randazza with Norm Pattis, which was probably a good switch (swapping the porn lawyer for the lawyer who made his name defending protesting hippies), but I could be wrong about which lawyer replaced him.

As far as I can put together, I think the sequence of events goes:
  1. Nick contacts Randazza to hire him around early December
  2. Randazza sends back the engagement letter, including the retainer amount
  3. Nick thinks, "holy shit that's a lot of money, I need a gofundme"
  4. Due to backlash over the car purchases, locals deal, and other bragging he has done, Nick doesn't do the gofundme, and instead starts to sell some securities or property or starts to get a loan to cover the retainer fee
  5. Nick can't do step 4 very quickly because all the buyers/lenders are on vacation, so he discovers he needs an extension in order to meet his court deadlines
  6. Nick "tries his hardest" to get the extension (through informal channels only, of course - a filing would be actual work)
  7. January rolls around and the deadline comes, with Nick still having not paid the retainer
  8. Everyone gets back from vacation, and Nick finally secures the money he tried to get in step 4
  9. Nick pays the retainer around January 10-15, completing the process of hiring Randazza
  10. Randazza files for admission Pro Hac Vice on Jan 19
If this timeline is correct, that means that Nick was stochastically represented by Randazza in the time between the engagement letter was sent and the retainer was paid. Crucially, Nick could have signed the engagement letter any time after step 2, and probably signed it before securing the money for the retainer. The contract would likely say that it wouldn't have actually gone into effect until he paid the money, but these kinds of contracts are weird because they are necessarily between a sophisticated party (a lawyer) and a layperson - also, I know Nick is a lawyer, but Randazza wouldn't rewrite his engagement letter just because the counterparty happens to be legally sophisticated in this instance.

Also, the delay isn't because atheist workaholic Marc Randazza is taking a Christmas vacation, it's because there is a third party here that is giving Nick money, who is not an atheist workaholic (which makes a lot more sense).
Click to expand...
A good summary and a fair theory that I tend to agree with in most parts.

Also, the AJ lawyer was Norm Patti's. He was supposed to go on a show with Nick, but that never materialised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Puppet clogged brain
Rekieta_1.JPG
 

Attachments

  • Informative
Reactions: Harvey Danger, talk talk talk, Kosher Salt and 3 others
5t3n0g0ph3r said:
Montagraph's Affidavit is... something.
View attachment 4601296
:story:
Imagine having to enter this in a court document.
Also,
View attachment 4601318
View attachment 4601429
I'm not even going to post the long spiel of the origins "The Umbrella Man" moniker.
There's some more goodies, I'm sure others can find more.
Click to expand...
I liked this line.
claims.png

More substantively, it appears that Rekieta's attempts to apply Colorado's anti-SLAPP laws may have hit a major snag. Montagraph says he secretly moved to Illinois in 2020. He says he maintains a Colorado address only to prevent people finding and harassing him in Illinois.
states.png
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Hongourable Madisha, Aspiring Artist, Vecr and 9 others
Balldo's Gate said:
I liked this line.
View attachment 4601473

More substantively, it appears that Rekieta's attempts to apply Colorado's anti-SLAPP laws may have hit a major snag. Montagraph says he secretly moved to Illinois in 2020. He says he maintains a Colorado address only to prevent people finding and harassing him in Illinois.
View attachment 4601512
Click to expand...
If Monty's counselor refers to a mental health counselor, I will die laughing. He might've outed his counselor as having entered into ethically gray territory at best, unethical territory at worst. The issue of giving sessions to someone across state lines is complicated, to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back