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

[AnOminous]

The mere fact that plaintiff’s self-serving counsel - or relatives thereof - expresses an opinion that something is outrageous doesn’t make it so for purposes of the statute. There would have to be a palpable and widespread sense of outrage on the part of the general public, or among the viewing audience, over Rackets comments before they could be considered “outrageous” within the statutory definition.

"Outrageous" is a term of art and generally means absolutely heinous and atrocious behavior, described by the Minnesota Supreme Court as such:

This court, in adopting this cause of action, stated that four elements must be proved in a claim for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. These are: "(1) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (3) it must cause emotional distress; and (4) the distress must be severe." Hubbard, 330 N.W.2d at 438-39. This court noted that such "extreme and outrageous" conduct must be "so atrocious that it passes the boundaries of decency and is utterly intolerable to the civilized community." Id. at 439 (quoting Haagenson v. National Farmers Union Prop. & Casualty Co., 277 N.W.2d 648, 652 n. 3 (Minn.1979)); see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965). The Restatement emphasizes that "[t]he law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. j (1965).

Dornfeld v. Oberg, 503 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. 1993).

On paper it is difficult and in practice virtually impossible to prove this tort. Not much is "so atrocious that it passes the boundaries of decency and is utterly intolerable to the civilized community." Shit-talking a retard on a livestream almost certainly doesn't meet the standard.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

It’s also very odd that Monty’s lawyer is interjecting himself so much into this.

So far this guy seems like a straight up lolcow himself. I’m sure there’s more self-righteous cray where that came from.

PS If that’s actually how Nick operates, not putting shit in writing and doing unannounced drop-ins for “talks” instead, I wouldn’t take his calls either. Put everything in writing, faggot. I’d also bar him from my office premises.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Lawyers seem more and more like petty shits

How else would they stay employed if they weren't getting the opposing side angry?

 

[Also Not a Fake Name]

View attachment 4609313

Obligatory "it's Spectre", but if it's true that Schneider said this, it probably refers to the case mentioned in the exhibits (see image).

Perhaps the narrative that Schneider had a grudge is true.

View attachment 4611144

EDIT: I looked up this case and Rekieta appears to have been replaced with an attorney named John E. Mack, of Mack & Daby. Maybe the law firm name "Mack & Daby" got mistaken by Spectre as "something Davey"?

Isn’t this the case that Nick’s talked about before? Where his client punched him before they where supposed to go to a deposition?

Cannot look at the moment, but if the case records are online and it was resolved 'within a week' we have a hit.

I was not amenable to the grudge angle, but there is more basis now. Lawyers seem more and more like petty shits the more I see of them and their correspondence... Almost as bad as lesbians...

The case in question took almost 9 more months before it was settled with the new lawyer.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Saying that all these people that are financially dependent on you, also agree with you isn’t that big of an own.

It’s also very odd that Monty’s lawyer is interjecting himself so much into this. Bet he’s butt hurt that the half assed small town lawyer has found greater success by failing upwards.

I wonder, if he's attempting to introduce his own reaction to the video as evidence for a substantive (rather than merely procedural) issue, can he be called to the stand to be cross-examined over it? That might put him in a bit of an ethical bind.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It's part of the IIED claim. One of the elements is that the defendant's actions have to be "outrageous".

Re:IIED in MN context

Intentional infliction of emotional distress consists of four distinct elements:

(1) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (3) it must cause emotional distress; and (4) the distress must be severe.

Re: first prong:

Conduct is "extreme and outrageous" when it is "so atrocious that it passes the boundaries of decency and is utterly intolerable to the civilized community."
Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress does not extend to "insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities." [...]To qualify as extreme and outrageous, the conduct must lead an average member of the community to exclaim "Outrageous!".
We have adopted the Restatement's definition of severe emotional distress: "The law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it."

See Langeslag v. KYMN Inc., 664 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. 2003)

Furthermore:

It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by "malice," or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort.

Restatement (Second) of Torts

And, finally:

mental distress damages claims are disfavored

Anderson v. Peavey, No. C4-96-2557 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 1997)

That is more or less true in every state, which is why IIED is not an easy tort to work with.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

The case in question took almost 9 more months before it was settled with the new lawyer.

I will have to look at MN case system I hope it has a feature like PACER where you can search by council on both sides.

EDIT: I looked, and I could not find any case on record where Rekieita and Schneider were opposed to each other. Either this was pre-court (unlikely given the reason to ignore 'he never answered interrogatories), I have bad reading ability (posssible, but there are only 13 non-criminal cases under Rekeita's belt on MCRO, or Schneider is lying or taking someone else's story.

 

[talk talk talk]

I will have to look at MN case system I hope it has a feature like PACER where you can search by council on both sides.

EDIT: I looked, and I could not find any case on record where Rekieita and Schneider were opposed to each other. Either this was pre-court (unlikely given the reason to ignore 'he never answered interrogatories), I have bad reading ability (posssible, but there are only 13 non-criminal cases under Rekeita's belt on MCRO, or Schneider is lying or taking someone else's story.

I'm pretty sure it's the Halvorson case mentioned in the exhibit to Schneider's affidavit. Rekeita filed a fucked up Notice of Withdrawal in that case a couple months later.

 

[Kosher Salt]

On paper it is difficult and in practice virtually impossible to prove this tort. Not much is "so atrocious that it passes the boundaries of decency and is utterly intolerable to the civilized community." Shit-talking a retard on a livestream almost certainly doesn't meet the standard.

And the opinions of the retard's lawyer, his lawyer's wife, and a few of his lawyer's close colleagues is a pretty retarded attempt to meet the standard of "outrageous conduct".

 

[TheOtherSideofMakeBelieve]

I wonder, if he's attempting to introduce his own reaction to the video as evidence for a substantive (rather than merely procedural) issue, can he be called to the stand to be cross-examined over it? That might put him in a bit of an ethical bind.

A material witness or victim can't act as a lawyer on either side of a case. A victim could potentially waive their rights but it would be extremely tricky because there's still the potential of them being called as a witness. They'd basically have to somehow be a victim but have no knowledge as to the facts of the case. If they just want to fling shit at each other that might be a fun addition to the ethics complaint arc. Schneider getting kicked off prematurely would be a fun addition to my fantasy timeline

 

[waffle]

I have a one man practice out of a shared office building, and more or less do exactly what Nick did before he hung up the law and became an alcoholic on the internet - only I actually make money at it. I've been involved in far more than my share of lolsuits and hurt feelings litigation, I've even represented some members of a hermetic cult in a weird schism/civil war in their cult. I say all that so I can say this, Monty's lawyer is seriously reminding me of a lawyer I know who is a crazy peace of shit and well known for getting way too personally involved in his cases. I expect this guy is going to keep filing bizarre shit and doubling and tripling down on weird positions. He'll probably file a bunch of spurious ethics shit on Randaza next, or sue him.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I have a one man practice out of a shared office building, and more or less do exactly what Nick did before he hung up the law and became an alcoholic on the internet - only I actually make money at it. I've been involved in far more than my share of lolsuits and hurt feelings litigation, I've even represented some members of a hermetic cult in a weird schism/civil war in their cult. I say all that so I can say this, Monty's lawyer is seriously reminding me of a lawyer I know who is a crazy peace of shit and well known for getting way too personally involved in his cases. I expect this guy is going to keep filing bizarre shit and doubling and tripling down on weird positions. He'll probably file a bunch of spurious ethics shit on Randaza next, or sue him.

We can only hope...

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

I have a one man practice out of a shared office building, and more or less do exactly what Nick did before he hung up the law and became an alcoholic on the internet - only I actually make money at it. I've been involved in far more than my share of lolsuits and hurt feelings litigation, I've even represented some members of a hermetic cult in a weird schism/civil war in their cult. I say all that so I can say this, Monty's lawyer is seriously reminding me of a lawyer I know who is a crazy peace of shit and well known for getting way too personally involved in his cases. I expect this guy is going to keep filing bizarre shit and doubling and tripling down on weird positions. He'll probably file a bunch of spurious ethics shit on Randaza next, or sue him.

It would be fitting if this potential lolsuit becomes the most meta of legal lolsuits, given Nick's supposed focus on the law. The pettiness would just be icing on the cake. So far, it's looking promising.

 

[TJBirish]

I'm still not ruling out this is some kind of "work" (to quote the Farms flavor of the month). Maybe Schneider is a drinking buddy of Rackets, or maybe they swap wives. I don't think Rekieta would shy away from some self-humiliation to score some kino content.

ETA: And yes, I'm collecting rainbows. Why do you ask?

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Rekieta is PISSED!

"Someone, either Montagraph's lawyer or Montagraph, perjured themselves."

He is asking for viewers to write affidavits for him saying that they knew of Montagraph before Rekieta talked about him.

At 12:05 he comments about Judge Jennifer Fischer. He responds to a question about the judge by saying "I know a ton about the judge over my case" but adds "I'm not going to say anything about this judge yet." He then tries to do some cleanup but saying what he would say would not be "anything particularly negative".

 

[Spaded Dave]

He is asking for viewers to write affidavits for him saying that they knew of Montagraph before Rekieta talked about him.

I caught this and was curious about something. Any legal experts in here can hopefully clarify for me. I get what he is trying to do, but how effective would affidavits from random Rekieta Fans actually be in a situation like this, and how many would he need to really make a difference? On a personal level I wouldn't take the word of someone's fans to mean much of shit given that there would be incentive for them to lie to protect their parasocial bestie. However, I'd venture a guess that in the legal world given the fact that they are swearing to the truth under threat of perjury that they would be seen as something more significant than I'd view them.

This case is an obvious lolsuit so I'm more curious about what the answer would be in a "normal" case.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I get what he is trying to do, but how effective would affidavits from random Rekieta Fans actually be in a situation like this, and how many would he need to really make a difference?

I am sincerely unsure as to why he'd bother. These affidavits aren't going to tip the scale (much if at all) on his libel-proof argument

 

[talk talk talk]

It doesn't matter which of these lolcows and their lolyers wins this lolsuit.

Kiwi Farms always wins.

 

[AnOminous]

I am sincerely unsure as to why he'd bother. These affidavits aren't going to tip the scale (much if at all) on his libel-proof argument

Seems like a damages phase argument and he really doesn't want to get to that part.

 

[waffle]

I caught this and was curious about something. Any legal experts in here can hopefully clarify for me. I get what he is trying to do, but how effective would affidavits from random Rekieta Fans actually be in a situation like this, and how many would he need to really make a difference? On a personal level I wouldn't take the word of someone's fans to mean much of shit given that there would be incentive for them to lie to protect their parasocial bestie. However, I'd venture a guess that in the legal world given the fact that they are swearing to the truth under threat of perjury that they would be seen as something more significant than I'd view them.

This case is an obvious lolsuit so I'm more curious about what the answer would be in a "normal" case.

Realy effective at pissing off the Judge, mostly.

This lolsuit is shifting into overdive, you can't keep up this operational tempo of retardation indefinitely.