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

[Owlbear]

Seems about right. Look at how much Nate the Lawyer's crowdfunded defamation lawsuit against Bouzy has cost him so far. He's spunked $30k just on getting the judge to agree that the lawsuit could proceed. He's looking for $150k to see the thing through to trial.

Nate's using an experienced defamation litigator out of NYC, so he isn't going to be cheap, but I imagine that he won't cost as much as Randazza would.

For me. the only real question is, at what point does Rekieta start begging his paypigs for the coin to pay his lawyer.

As civil litigation goes, $150k is downright affordable. Aside from his choice of lawyer, Nate the Lawyer is going cheap and supposedly helping out with the legal work (which he can because he has ~10 YoE as a trial lawyer). Rekieta may be spending a lot more since he's $50k in at this point and he hasn't done any significant argumentation yet and is not qualified to help write briefs and motions at this level.

Speaking of these amounts of money, Monty can't be asking for too much more than $100k, so this lolsuit has already hit the point of being economically inefficient for Nick. I think he was hoping to get more advertising value out of this lolsuit, but he didn't realize that nobody actually gives a shit about him and his life drama.

Personally, I'm not sure how successful a gofundme will be for this: maybe he'll make it to $100k on the 1000 or so simps that are left if he can make them forget about the $250k of car purchases he just did and the $1 million he made off Johnny Depp (to be fair, that's revenue, and the government takes more than half of his profit since he's self-employed and I doubt he's using a tax-efficient structure). The gofundme would also be business revenue, though, and this lolsuit likely isn't an allowable business expense for Nick, so that's also possibly taxable.

Nate the Lawyer's gofundme was shared all over Lawtube and plausibly made it to "the culture war" so it's reasonable to assume that his GFM would do better than something for Nick Rekieta's lolsuit with his "personal retard."

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Speaking of these amounts of money, Monty can't be asking for too much more than $100k, so this lolsuit has already hit the point of being economically inefficient for Nick. I think he was hoping to get more advertising value out of this lolsuit, but he didn't realize that nobody actually gives a shit about him and his life drama.

Personally, I'm not sure how successful a gofundme will be for this: maybe he'll make it to $100k on the 1000 or so simps that are left if he can make them forget about the $250k of car purchases he just did and the $1 million he made off Johnny Depp (to be fair, that's revenue, and the government takes more than half of his profit since he's self-employed and I doubt he's using a tax-efficient structure).

You have to be quite the simp to donate to a GFM when Rekieta literally said, as quoted in Monty's amended complaint, "sue me if you want". Nick was talking quite the game when he thought that Monty wouldn't call him on his bluff. To go cap in hand to the audience at this point would be something else.

 

[AnOminous]

You have to be quite the simp to donate to a GFM when Rekieta literally said, as quoted in Monty's amended complaint, "sue me if you want". Nick was talking quite the game when he thought that Monty wouldn't call him on his bluff. To go cap in hand to the audience at this point would be something else.

Therefore, I expect him to do exactly that.

 

[Twitter Is Cancer]

Therefore, I expect him to do exactly that.

Time to start a bingo card.

"Here's the thing."
"I MEANT to do that."
"Fuck you. Fuck ALL of you!"
"That's fine. [said quieter as if to himself] That's fine."
"That's not what free speech means."
"I'm ok with that. That's perfectly fine."
"What kind of fucking RETARD fucking even does that! [ten minute childish drunken rant]"
"If you want to help as many of you have asked about, I probably will set something up."
etc.

 

[Uncle Buck]

My seat-of-the-pants thoughts without pulling all the cases is that Judge Fischer will go with the safe option of saying that the MN supreme court's decision controls and that if Rackets & Randy want to challenge that, they can waste money at the court of appeals. I think this is especially so given the Minnesota Pat the Pedo case where calling someone a pedophile was held to be defamation per se. In MN, at least, the facts pretty strongly indicate Rackets has some liability and this case is not just garbage.

Look for a Rackets Gofundme sometime in July.

Ah, Longbehn vs. Schoenrock (see attached)… Low-key maybe the LOLsiest of LOLsuits, even if it didn’t involve internet famous retards. It took almost eleven years from the date of first filing, with incalculable amounts of legal fees to both parties, only to be resolved with the plaintiff “winning” $750.00 - yes, just seven-hundred and fifty dollars - for the “humiliation” of being referred to by a derogatory nickname some locals had saddled him with because he’d been in a relationship with a large age-gap.

 

[Swole McPole]

Ah, Longbehn vs. Schoenrock… Low-key maybe the LOLsiest of LOLsuits, even if it didn’t involve internet famous regards. It took almost eleven years from the date of first filing, with incalculable amounts of legal fees to both parties, only to be resolved with the plaintiff “winning” $750.00 - yes, just seven-hundred and fifty dollars - for the “humiliation” of being referred to by a derogatory nickname some locals had saddled him with because he’d been in a relationship with a large age-gap.

All completely true, but:

a.) It was still a win for Pat the Pedo. Appeals court found it defamatory, per se.
b.) The court found that the nickname hadn't caused him to lose his job, so it's hard to see that there's any real significant financial damage there. It was really just local gossip over a stupid nickname.
c.) In Monty's case, you've got a lawyer, sitting in front of a panel of other lawyers, broadcasting the claim that Monty is a paedophile to an audience of what -- tens of thousands? Over time, perhaps hundreds of thousands? And searchable on the internet for all time?

I like Monty's chances far better than I do Pat's. I've thought from the very start of this thing, that any lawyer who isn't advising Nick to settle -- to publicly apologize and give him some money to make it all go away -- is at best, incompetent. That said, I know Nick is much too dumb to take good advice offered in good faith.

It's going to be interesting to see how much money he's prepared to spunk away on lawyers over his freeze peach rights to call other people paedophiles online. Presumably, because he's a law channel, he's seen how much people are prepared to get behind streamers with lawsuits and thinks it's a path to building or consolidating his audience? I honestly can't come up with any other reason for his not having settled this right at the start -- even if he genuinely believes he'll win. Unless you're as rich as King Midas (or defamation lawsuits are covered on your home insurance policy that guarantees you won't be out of pocket), fighting this lawsuit makes no sense at all.

 

[teriyakiburns]

I like Monty's chances far better than I do Pat's. I've thought from the very start of this thing, that any lawyer who isn't advising Nick to settle -- to publicly apologize and give him some money to make it all go away -- is at best, incompetent. That said, I know Nick is much too dumb to take good advice offered in good faith.

You forget, though: Monty is a paedophile.

 

[waffle]

You forget, though: Monty is a paedophile.

I think thats what it's going to come down to at the end of the day. Can you convince either the judge or the jury that Monty is a pedophile, making it nondefamatory to call him one.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

As civil litigation goes, $150k is downright affordable. Aside from his choice of lawyer, Nate the Lawyer is going cheap and supposedly helping out with the legal work (which he can because he has ~10 YoE as a trial lawyer). Rekieta may be spending a lot more since he's $50k in at this point and he hasn't done any significant argumentation yet and is not qualified to help write briefs and motions at this level.

Speaking of these amounts of money, Monty can't be asking for too much more than $100k, so this lolsuit has already hit the point of being economically inefficient for Nick. I think he was hoping to get more advertising value out of this lolsuit, but he didn't realize that nobody actually gives a shit about him and his life drama.

Personally, I'm not sure how successful a gofundme will be for this: maybe he'll make it to $100k on the 1000 or so simps that are left if he can make them forget about the $250k of car purchases he just did and the $1 million he made off Johnny Depp (to be fair, that's revenue, and the government takes more than half of his profit since he's self-employed and I doubt he's using a tax-efficient structure). The gofundme would also be business revenue, though, and this lolsuit likely isn't an allowable business expense for Nick, so that's also possibly taxable.

Nate the Lawyer's gofundme was shared all over Lawtube and plausibly made it to "the culture war" so it's reasonable to assume that his GFM would do better than something for Nick Rekieta's lolsuit with his "personal retard."

Nate's case was also tied into the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp rabid fans. No one cares about a random melon fucker.

 

[Uncle Buck]

All completely true, but:

a.) It was still a win for Pat the Pedo. Appeals court found it defamatory, per se.

This is true, and it makes me wonder just how far "decoupled" Minnesotastan is from the rest of the country in jurisprudence.

Since the Second Restatement of Torts, defamation "per se" - at least to my understanding - is supposed to require proof of actual damage [which Longbehn went out of his way to try and prove was a direct result of the single instance of Schoenrock using the nickname "Pat the Pedophile" (and even to try and lay blame for it's general use on Schoenrock as if he personally had invented it)] which, then, gives rise to a jury instruction stating that punitive or "special" damages are permissible, whereas in defamation generally, damages are limited to actual damaged caused as a result of the false assertion. Or am I wrong, @AnOminous et al?

 

[Swole McPole]

You forget, though: Monty is a paedophile.

It's true. I've never actually paid that much attention to Monty. I did watch his little girl in a piggy mask getting molested video, assuming that that'd be the best evidence in support of the claim that he's a paedo -- but I didn't find it compelling.

Is it evidence of somebody putting their fetish out there in the open, or just a slow-witted moron trying to make a bad 'art' film? I'm guessing that that's what the jury will have to decide. I have to say though, while I'd definitely have my suspicions about the content of Monty's sexual fantasies, it I was on the jury, it'd take more than that video to convince me he was actually fucking kids.

And I suspect, in Minnesota, someone has to be actually fucking kids, not just be fantasizing about doing it, before you can defame them with impunity. Though I imagine if you can prove someone is fantasizing about it (and the piggy video would help in that regard) they won't win very much in damages.

 

[Uncle Buck]

It's true. I've never actually paid that much attention to Monty. I did watch his little girl in a piggy mask getting molested video, assuming that that'd be the best evidence in support of the claim that he's a paedo -- but I didn't find it compelling.

Is it evidence of somebody putting their fetish out there in the open, or just a slow-witted moron trying to make a bad 'art' film? I'm guessing that that's what the jury will have to decide. I have to say though, while I'd definitely have my suspicions about the content of Monty's sexual fantasies, it I was on the jury, it'd take more than that video to convince me he was actually fucking kids.

And I suspect, in Minnesota, someone has to be actually fucking kids, not just be fantasizing about doing it, before you can defame them with impunity. Though I imagine if you can prove someone is fantasizing about it (and the piggy video would help in that regard) they won't win very much in damages.

You illustrate part of the problem with the use of the term "pedophile" [effectively, a state of mind] as a stand-in for "child molester" [a reference to a criminal act].

The two terms are not synonymous, but courts generally have taken it to mean that by referring to a person as a "pedophile" you're not stating an opinion that, based on the context of their public statements or behavior, that they may be sexually attracted to minors [again, attraction in and of itself is not an act], but that you're stating, categorically, that they are engaging in/have engaged in an act of child molestation.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Rekieta may be spending a lot more since he's $50k in at this point and he hasn't done any significant argumentation yet and is not qualified to help write briefs and motions at this level.

$50k retainer or $50k billed for?

I always advise people who come in for a consult on the subject that defamation suits are a rich man's game.

Since the Second Restatement of Torts, defamation "per se" - at least to my understanding - is supposed to require proof of actual damage [which Longbehn went out of his way to try and prove was a direct result of the single instance of Schoenrock using the nickname "Pat the Pedophile" (and even to try and lay blame for it's general use on Schoenrock as if he personally had invented it)] which, then, gives rise to a jury instruction stating that punitive or "special" damages are permissible, whereas in defamation generally, damages are limited to actual damaged caused as a result of the false assertion. Or am I wrong, @AnOminous et al?

The point of defamation per se is that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove actual monetary damages to meet their burden of proof. How much the jury chooses to award based on those presumed damages is another matter entirely.

 

[Swole McPole]

The two terms are not synonymous, but courts generally have taken it to mean that by referring to a person as a "pedophile" you're not stating an opinion that, based on the context of their public statements or behavior, that they may be sexually attracted to minors [again, attraction in and of itself is not an act], but that you're stating, categorically, that they are engaging in/have engaged in an act of child molestation.

Yes, I do conflate the two things but didn't Rekieta say exacty this? I seem to recall him saying specifically that Monty was a paedophile who likes to suck little boys dicks. One thing might refer to a state of mind, but saying he sucks little boy dicks backs that up by reference to a specific action.

I can't find the clip off hand, but I've also seen Rekieta saying that he says it's reasonable to make the assumption that Monty likes sucking little boy's dicks because he once made a movie in the style of those Japanese pinku gore/porn things involving the kidnap/torture of someone who may or may not have been underage. Hard to say exactly how old the person was because they wore a mask, but I'm pretty sure I've seen Monty saying that the actress was actually of age.

Rekieta obviously thinks it's worth his time and money to roll the dice in court over the issue. If I'd said those things, I'd be making a grovelling apology to Monty as soon as I possibly could. There's so much to lose and absolutely nothing to gain by fighting a case like this.

 

[Owlbear]

$50k retainer or $50k billed for?

Apparently $50k billed so far, and the retainer was only $40k.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Yes, I do conflate the two things but didn't Rekieta say exacty this?

From Monty's amended complaint.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Nick was drunk and foolish enough to dare Monty to sue him after calling him a pedo who sucks little boy dicks. So Monty sued him. Anyone who’d donate to a GFM for this deserves to be fleeced.

I’m as disgusted by Monty as can be but facts are facts. Nick is a living meme on this one.

the government takes more than half of his profit since he's self-employed and I doubt he's using a tax-efficient structure

Which is insane if true. He’s an (ostensibly libertarian) lawyer who’s the beneficiary of at least one trust fund. If he doesn’t have his shit set up in a tax efficient way, despite having ample means and incentives to do so, he’s even more of a drunk retard than I suspected.

Honestly this is pathetic behavior from a parent of young children — and that’s before you consider his and his wife’s online sexual exhibitionism. And doesn’t Nick LARP as a Xian?

 

[Uncle Buck]

Yes, I do conflate the two things...

I apologize if my comment gave you the impression I was suggesting you conflated the two things; that was not what I was trying to say.

...but didn't Rekieta say exacty this? I seem to recall him saying specifically that Monty was a paedophile who likes to suck little boys dicks. One thing might refer to a state of mind, but saying he sucks little boy dicks backs that up by reference to a specific action.

Yes, as @Balldo's Gate quoted from the complaint. Unless he's going to attempt a Falwell-style defense and claim that his comments were so outlandish in nature that they couldn't possibly have been taken seriously, Rackets may have a real problem.

I can't find the clip off hand, but I've also seen Rekieta saying that he says it's reasonable to make the assumption that Monty likes sucking little boy's dicks because he once made a movie in the style of those Japanese pinku gore/porn things involving the kidnap/torture of someone who may or may not have been underage. Hard to say exactly how old the person was because they wore a mask, but I'm pretty sure I've seen Monty saying that the actress was actually of age.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Rekieta obviously thinks it's worth his time and money to roll the dice in court over the issue. If I'd said those things, I'd be making a grovelling apology to Monty as soon as I possibly could. There's so much to lose and absolutely nothing to gain by fighting a case like this.

Yeah, his comments seem like a perfect example of how not to attack a person who might otherwise be completely gross lest you wind up exactly where he is.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Curiouser and curiouser.

IIRC Nick has said that he is under the belief that the sequel(s) to The Umbrella Man included a male actor, although I think Monty's affidavit disputes this.

I can't remember if Nick has actually said this in one of his filings or whether it was just something he said on Locals though.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Apparently $50k billed so far, and the retainer was only $40k.

Randazza is going to be the only winner in this case. Even if the other attorney is getting paid, he's very publicly done stupid things like lie about what jurisdiction his client resides in.