Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

I think everyone involved in this lawsuit should die (maybe just Randazza sprains his ankle idk, he seems skeevy).

 

[Owlbear]

I think everyone involved in this lawsuit should die (maybe just Randazza sprains his ankle idk, he seems skeevy).

Randazza is as much of a lolcow as the rest - he's corrupt (certainly a greedy pig), plays it fast and loose with the rules, and may be a bigger coomer than Rekieta given his pornographic history. I was assuming the small town lawyer was a little bit honest and professional, but after the last affidavit ("I swear my client lied to me"), nope.

In a just timeline, all of them are accused of a crime, and have to turn to Ty Beard for their defense.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

That's not how this works. You don't get to hide like that and launch legal assaults on someone.

According to the affidavits from Schneider and Monty, Monty gave a valid mailing address that he can be served at. Schneider says that Monty received and signed documents sent by him to the address.

Assuming that's true, I bet Rekieta really doesn't like that. He's shown from the ethics complaints that he's not above dangling the dox when he gets someone's address after they file something against him.

They knew this info beforehand and hid it because they are liars or fucking retarded.

All I said is the only concrete benefit I can see for Monty giving a Colorado mailing address is that it prevents Rekieta from dangling or posting his dox. That's very beneficial for someone who has been stalked before, even though there's absolutely no evidence the stalker(s) were associated with or even knew of Rekieta.

I am not saying he was correct or justified in doing so. He wasn't. He should have said he was an IL resident and used some mailing address that's not his home. Unless MN has weird rules about what addresses parties can use, I don't think there would have been anything stopping him from using a PO box several counties over as his address.

 

[ChromaQuack]

What's more gay, me for thinking I found something or you for gatekeeping an anonymous forum as if this is your community?

Go back to your locals chat, faglord.

You didn't just post late info, that happens, it's fine, sometimes things get buried in threads.

You expected people to bow down and suck your balldo over the (late and gay) crumb you so graciously provided, it didn't happen because anyone and everyone here can sniff out attention whores a mile away.

You behaved like an absolute retard, with your little "you are welcome" shtick, refusing to elaborate, and then got very very defensive as your little delicate feelings got hurt when people pointed out it was already posted.

Yes, I will gatekeep the shit out of this place, as will everyone else, this community is big on self moderation by driving spastics like you out of it.

Length of rope, get it.

 

[The Goat Man]

Nick weighs in on his Fields Of Green sponsor:
View attachment 4613534

Why settle with the imitation when you can get the original juice:

Spoiler: Original Post

 

[feral cat #6385]

Why settle with the imitation when you can get the original juice:

View attachment 4616738

Spoiler: Original Post

View attachment 4616712

What does this gay assed bullshit have to do with anything?

Is this faggot day or something?

 

[Mocha Shaka Khan]

Is this faggot day or something?

Is grass green? Is the sky blue?

 

[Swole McPole]

That's not how this works. You don't get to hide like that and launch legal assaults on someone. They knew this info beforehand and hid it because they are liars or fucking retarded.

Monty's attorney is a bush league hack.

So what does it mean? Is it sufficient to get the case dismissed? That seems unlikely to me. I'd imagine that, at most, Monty or his lawyer will get a stern admonition from the bench and everything will carry on regardless?

I heard Rekieta ranting about how this was going to cost Monty's lawyer loads of money. Is that likely? Given that the record has been corrected/clarified, I'm not really seeing what the issue is here. Perhaps it'll cause the judge to look at Monty's case with a more sceptical eye, and that can't be a good thing, but are there likely to be more serious consequences than that?

 

[Strix454]

So what does it mean? Is it sufficient to get the case dismissed? That seems unlikely to me. I'd imagine that, at most, Monty or his lawyer will get a stern admonition from the bench and everything will carry on regardless?

I heard Rekieta ranting about how this was going to cost Monty's lawyer loads of money. Is that likely? Given that the record has been corrected/clarified, I'm not really seeing what the issue is here. Perhaps it'll cause the judge to look at Monty's case with a more sceptical eye, and that can't be a good thing, but are there likely to be more serious consequences than that?

Its not really much of anything. It makes Monty's side look stupid and disorganized to the court which is bad. But not anywhere near fatal at this point. I'm not sure there will even be a stern admonition. But they can't make a pattern of it and it does hurt their credibility.
As far as Nick, alot of what he has been saying about the case has either been overheated as one would expect or doesn't make much sense. I don't know how any of this would cost anyone "loads of money". Nick was ranting about perjury and maybe he is personally convinced that perjury charges will be brought against the other side in the case. But that seems extremely unlikely.
Where Monty lives is very important to Nick because Nick believes that he is somehow either going to get the case moved to another state (Colorado) or get Colorado's tough anti-SLAAP law applied to a minnesota case. In Nick's damaged brain, this seems to be already accomplished even though it isn't (and its no small thing to accomplish). Then using the Colorado anti-SLAPP laws, he sees himself not only defeating Monty but forcing Monty to pay all his legal bills. I don't where all this stuff he is saying is coming from. If its him thinking this stuff, if its his attorney or if he is talking to people who don't know what they are talking about.
Monty's side has to establish that Minnesota is the right venue for the case and get the judge to accept that. Nick's side will argue that it is not and push toward throwing the case out or moving the case. All the stuff about Colorado law, Colorado's anti-SLAAP, deciding if Monty lives in Colorado and so on is involved but (IMO) secondary to more basic questions.
Its still early days. Lots of cow drama to look forward to in the case.

 

[AnOminous]

This seems to me like a bill-maximization strategy that has a tiny (but nonzero) chance of actually helping his client, but his client was likely very happy to have him do it so he went for it.

Even if it is a potentially goofy strategy (I am not going to do the research to figure it out), it's pretty obvious Nick is on-board with this and as a licensed lawyer himself, there is basically zero chance he's just being taken advantage of by an unscrupulous lawyer making ridiculous arguments just to rack up billables.

That can actually be part of his motivation so long as his client is okay with it too, which he clearly is.

There may actually be an argument there. I'll wait to see it.

It's not clear to me that the plaintiff lied about what state he was in for an advantage in the case itself.

That just makes it slightly less bad, though. For whatever reason, he chose to submit false statements. That really calls his credibility into question about nearly everything else he's said.

If I had any doubt he's fucked a melon, it's gone.

Perhaps it'll cause the judge to look at Monty's case with a more sceptical eye, and that can't be a good thing, but are there likely to be more serious consequences than that?

I think it's a great thing!

I mean for us.

The circus music is playing, the peanuts are roasting, and I think we have a real clown show coming.

 

[ShinyStar]

So what does it mean? Is it sufficient to get the case dismissed? That seems unlikely to me. I'd imagine that, at most, Monty or his lawyer will get a stern admonition from the bench and everything will carry on regardless?

I heard Rekieta ranting about how this was going to cost Monty's lawyer loads of money. Is that likely? Given that the record has been corrected/clarified, I'm not really seeing what the issue is here. Perhaps it'll cause the judge to look at Monty's case with a more sceptical eye, and that can't be a good thing, but are there likely to be more serious consequences than that?

I think the money thing comes from asking the court for sanctions. Randazza spent all that time writing a response based on the idea that Monty is in Colorado. That's time researching CO'S laws and writing a response tailored to them. Now that it's clear that Monty isn't in CO, then all of that becomes irrelevant. The entire response was written based on information that Monty provided to the court that was false. Now Randazza has to write an entirely new response, and I'm sure he's going to ask the court to make Monty reimburse him for the amount Nick had to pay for the first response. I have no legal background, but I would wager that the court would likely agree to sanctions since it is based on a fraud perpetrated against both Nick and the Court.

 

[Owlbear]

I think the money thing comes from asking the court for sanctions. Randazza spent all that time writing a response based on the idea that Monty is in Colorado. That's time researching CO'S laws and writing a response tailored to them. Now that it's clear that Monty isn't in CO, then all of that becomes irrelevant. The entire response was written based on information that Monty provided to the court that was false. Now Randazza has to write an entirely new response, and I'm sure he's going to ask the court to make Monty reimburse him for the amount Nick had to pay for the first response. I have no legal background, but I would wager that the court would likely agree to sanctions since it is based on a fraud perpetrated against both Nick and the Court.

I think there's some chance that the judge will just say "I wasn't going to accept this anyway, let's move on and drop the anti-SLAPP arguments." That is what Monty's side wants to have happen. It seems like an odd legal theory to use, but it may bear fruit for him (it already has).

Nick's side hasn't made any attempts to switch the forum yet, and as I understand it, he can't switch to a less "convenient" forum for him (even if it is more "convenient" for the other side), so he probably can't remove this case to CO or IL. In any case, he would have tried that first if he thought he could.

That motion from Randazza is likely around $30-50k, by the way, so I'm sure Nick is very upset that it was essentially wasted.

 

[Richard Freeman]

 

[Diamond Homonculus]

View attachment 4617762

POV: you are a 20 year old rent boy in a vegas bar.

 

[Lady Rackets Ass]

View attachment 4617762

I can’t stop hearing it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6iFbuIpe68k

 

[AnOminous]

According to the affidavits from Schneider and Monty, Monty gave a valid mailing address that he can be served at. Schneider says that Monty received and signed documents sent by him to the address.

Having a valid mailing address in a state does not equal being a domiciliary.

Nick's side hasn't made any attempts to switch the forum yet, and as I understand it, he can't switch to a less "convenient" forum for him (even if it is more "convenient" for the other side), so he probably can't remove this case to CO or IL. In any case, he would have tried that first if he thought he could.

It's not a choice-of-forum issue, it's a choice-of-law issue.

I don't have much of an opinion of the apparent argument, but it would be that according to Minnesota's choice-of-law statute, another state's law should apply even though the case is heard in a Minnesota court.

My opinion on this is pretty much "good luck" and MR may be trying to make some entirely different argument, but such things do happen.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

I think there's some chance that the judge will just say "I wasn't going to accept this anyway, let's move on and drop the anti-SLAPP arguments." That is what Monty's side wants to have happen. It seems like an odd legal theory to use, but it may bear fruit for him (it already has).

The judge will probably be tearing her hair out when she realizes how much of a shitshow this lolsuit has already turned out to be.

Having a valid mailing address in a state does not equal being a domiciliary.

Maybe it's not clear but I don't disagree. I was just responding to the claim that it's "hiding" and somehow not allowed to use a mailing address that's not your home address when filing a lawsuit.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

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.View attachment 4613734

Weird... MCRO does not list him as an attorney on this case... Probably because he never appeared in court as counsel.

Anyway, Schneider's 'week' was actually several months of negotiation, but the lack of filings from Nick are at least consistent with his claims. Who knows what professional correspondence between them occurred... Also, the clietn ended up paying about 75% of what he was sued for. Probably actual labour costs for the services rendered that he did not pay, but both sides probably paid about 10k in legal fees.

According to the affidavits from Schneider and Monty, Monty gave a valid mailing address that he can be served at. Schneider says that Monty received and signed documents sent by him to the address.

Assuming that's true, I bet Rekieta really doesn't like that. He's shown from the ethics complaints that he's not above dangling the dox when he gets someone's address after they file something against him.


All I said is the only concrete benefit I can see for Monty giving a Colorado mailing address is that it prevents Rekieta from dangling or posting his dox. That's very beneficial for someone who has been stalked before, even though there's absolutely no evidence the stalker(s) were associated with or even knew of Rekieta.

I am not saying he was correct or justified in doing so. He wasn't. He should have said he was an IL resident and used some mailing address that's not his home. Unless MN has weird rules about what addresses parties can use, I don't think there would have been anything stopping him from using a PO box several counties over as his address.

When has he threatened a doxx? I know he has said obliquely that 'certain people' who have been critical of them that he 'knows' information about them... (Cynthia and Ralph, for two), but that is a bit more obtuse than a threat. I do not particularly care about the flaggots who filed copy-paste ethics complaints and do not count them.

I think the money thing comes from asking the court for sanctions. Randazza spent all that time writing a response based on the idea that Monty is in Colorado. That's time researching CO'S laws and writing a response tailored to them. Now that it's clear that Monty isn't in CO, then all of that becomes irrelevant. The entire response was written based on information that Monty provided to the court that was false. Now Randazza has to write an entirely new response, and I'm sure he's going to ask the court to make Monty reimburse him for the amount Nick had to pay for the first response. I have no legal background, but I would wager that the court would likely agree to sanctions since it is based on a fraud perpetrated against both Nick and the Court.

Or the court will say: 'You should have done better' let us get back to the matter at hand... I am going with this theory that they cannot *prove* malfeasance, so they will default to stupidity and bad luck as an explanation...

 

[Not Who You Think]

First thing I thought of when I saw the creepy smile and greasy beard:



Let's hope it ends better for Nick.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Weird... MCRO does not list him as an attorney on this case... Probably because he never appeared in court as counsel.

Correct. There is a very passive aggressive notice of withdrawal of counsel filed by Nick in the docket that seems like it must have been requested by someone. And if I had to guess I'd guess that someone was Schneider. I saw it on MCRO and it was also posted in one of the threads here.

In fairness to Nick, I don't see anything in the record that would suggest a need for him to file that either, but if Spectre was right that Schneider was pissed about Nick turning up at his offices back then, maybe Schneider wanted to be very safe about it.

I do not particularly care about the flaggots who filed copy-paste ethics complaints and do not count them.

Rekieta must wish you worked for the OLPR, considering that to my knowledge he hasn't said anything about them closing the investigation over that incident. As of last month they weren't even telling him whether the investigation was open or not.