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

[Twitter Is Cancer]

I feel anxious just thinking about the legal bills for all this. Nick’s GOTTA know he’s going to regret not coming to a quick settlement and moving on. Right?

This is all giving me early Mignona saga vibes: It’s still not too late to deescalate, settle and move on with life, but you can tell neither party is pragmatic enough to make such a wise choice. And the plaintiff’s attorney seems to have a long held personal grudge against Rekeita to boot. Seems like not the best situation to burn hundreds of thousands of dollars on, but what do I know? I’d never even heard of the Balldo.

Meanwhile all the lawyers clean up. Hard to fault them for it when the clients are this fucking hellbent on self-immolation.

Why would Monty want to settle? He's obnoxious, silly, and on his terms, he's winning. He's scored financial hits on his enemy and the case hasn't been laughed out of court.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Why would Monty want to settle? He's obnoxious, silly, and on his terms, he's winning. He's scored financial hits on his enemy and the case hasn't been laughed out of court.

I’m not assuming Monty would settle. But if I were Nick I’d be trying to find an angle on persuading him to do so.

 

[Swole McPole]

Why would Monty want to settle? He's obnoxious, silly, and on his terms, he's winning. He's scored financial hits on his enemy and the case hasn't been laughed out of court.

There are a couple of reasons.

a.) Litigation is always stressful for all parties involved.
b.) If Rekieta gave him money and made a public apology, that would be a decisive win. One he could crow over for all time.
c.) Continuing the litigation might bleed Rekieta dry, but there's no guaranteed pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. He could end up like Pat the Pedo. Eight years of litigation and awarded a pittance at the end of it all.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Litigation is always stressful for all parties involved.

Monty has gone after several of his online nemeses in court. I’m forgetting the details but some fat YouTuber covered it a few years ago.

 

[2lolis1cup]

TL;DR on this connection?

Legal Mindset was being a turbo autist about his last name. He claimed it was impossible to know his last name unless he told you. I found it in a few days and later. @Balldo's Gate found more info as well.

Damn I think your correct.

I was looking here

https://youhavepower.com/attorneys/

Well now I can.


Andrew Esquire/ Andrew Clifford d'Adesky/ Legal Mindset/ esquireinternational
View attachment 4019367
View attachment 4035060
View attachment 4035057
View attachment 4035078

Lawyer Directory – The Florida Bar

www.floridabar.org

10/26: People on move

www.orlandosentinel.com

10/26: People on move – Orlando Sentinel

archived 9 Dec 2022 13:31:04 UTC

archive.vn

View attachment 4035105
View attachment 4035102


Also lol D'adesky

Pending lawsuits against "Andrew Dadesky" in Miami-Dade County
(Both stalled due to inability to locate defendant)

Source:
Miami-Dade County Clerk's website (search "Dadesky, Andrew")

1. WELLS FARGO BANK NA VS ANDREW C DADESKY

View attachment 4252126

The complaint for this lawsuit, filed on June 27 2022, is not available on the Miami-Dade County Clerk's website, but the cover sheet is. The cover sheet says the claim is for $30,000, but according to the website, the amount of the claim is between $8,001 and $15,000.

View attachment 4252135

On August 27, service of process was attempted and failed. The process server wrote "I spoke with an individual who indicated they were the employee and they stated subject unknown. This is a mailbox and no one knows who he is."

View attachment 4252268

2. AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS ANDREW DADESKY

View attachment 4252284

The complaint itself for this lawsuit, filed earlier than the first on December 15 2021, is available on the Miami-Dade County Clerk's website. According to Exhibit B of the lawsuit, "Andrew Dadesky" had an account balance of $25,570.14 on his Delta SkyMiles Gold Card account.

View attachment 4252212

The complaint provides a different address for Andrew C Dadesky.

View attachment 4252187

American Express has tried on multiple occasions to obtain process of service. The first was on January 3, 2022. At that that time, the resident claimed that Andrew left without telling her where he was going. The process server wrote "Family relative house but defendant does not reside. According to Mrs. Vicky, did not provide current whereabouts." We'll get back to Mrs. Vicky (actually spelled Vicki) later.

View attachment 4252418

On May 2, 2022, the Miami-Dade Police Department received the civil summons. Police attempted on five separate occasions to serve Andrew. The first four times they received no answer. On the fifth try, the current resident said Andrew "does not reside at address, no longer live in the country".

View attachment 4252459

IS "ANDREW DADESKY" ANDREW CLIFFORD D'ADESKY?

View attachment 4252771

In the case AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS ANDREW DADESKY, an address in Coral Gables, Florida is listed for Andrew Dadesky.

View attachment 4253138
View attachment 4252315

In a 2009 bankruptcy proceedings for a company called Crabtree & Evelyn, Ltd.,, a woman named Vicki d'Adesky was listed as a creditor living at that address.

View attachment 4252319

Florida voter registration data are public records. According to voterrecords.com, Vicki d'Adesky is a 64 year old registered Republican. Also registered to vote as a Republican at the same address is 36 year old Andrew Clifford d'Adesky.

View attachment 4252383
View attachment 4252362

Also available on the Miami-Dade County Clerk's website is the case relating to the dissolution of Vicki d'Adesky's marriage involving her and her husband, Sanford Pierre d'Adesky. One of Vicki's children is listed as "Andrew Clifford D'Adesky".

View attachment 4252730

In the obituary for Andrew Clifford d'Adesky's father, Sanford Pierre d'Adesky, it is stated that the elder d'Adesky lived in Haiti. Legal Mindset stated last night on Rekieta's show that he had family in Haiti.

View attachment 4253010
View attachment 4253003

 

[Kosher Salt]

This was very stupid of Schneider.

Honestly I'm perplexed as to why he wouldn't bother to check with Monty before speculating on such an easily discernible fact.

edit: and really, to what end? What would it even prove if Nick did have Monty's Illinois address? "Well Nick knew Monty's Illinois mailing address!" Even if that was accurate, Monty's complaint clearly stated that he previously resided in Illinois and currently resides in Colorado: they told Nick that an Illinois address, presuming Nick had been aware of one, is not Monty's current address, but a prior one. This is just an entirely unforced error, and it's not even to score a huge point. I don't get it.

I don't think even Nick is stupid enough to not know that it's going to cost him vast amounts of time and money for jackshit in return, but his pride won't allow it. He wants to be remembered as the other guy who owned a litigious schizo in court no matter what he has to sacrifice for it. He probably sees settlement as a kind of truce and that's the exact opposite of what he wants.

I think Nick is trying to use the same approach that companies like Google or Disney use to deter lawsuits: bring big legal guns to bear on the plaintiff and make him expend blood, sweat, and tears for every step forward.

Course, Nick doesn't exactly have Google or Disney money to spend on this. But I'm not sure how Monty could possibly afford to pay for this, and it's only just getting started.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Nick doesn't exactly have Google or Disney money to spend on this. But I'm not sure how Monty could possibly afford to pay for this, and it's only just getting started.

I don’t follow Nick’s thread but I know he has made a few enemies in recent years. Do any of them have the dosh to help subsidize Monty’s legal bills? Or does Schneider hate Nick so much he’s working on a contingency basis?

 

[Owlbear]

I don’t follow Nick’s thread but I know he has made a few enemies in recent years. Do any of them have the dosh to help subsidize Monty’s legal bills? Or does Schneider hate Nick so much he’s working on a contingency basis?

My current theory is that he's working on contingency because:

1. He seems to dislike Nick Rekieta on a personal level (as well as a professional level)
2. His firm does a lot of workers comp suits, which are often also done on contingency - the plaintiff usually can't pay upfront
3. He is stupid enough to think that a defamation lawsuit is just like any other civil lawsuit

 

[Kosher Salt]

My current theory is that he's working on contingency because:

1. He seems to dislike Nick Rekieta on a personal level (as well as a professional level)
2. His firm does a lot of workers comp suits, which are often also done on contingency - the plaintiff usually can't pay upfront
3. He is stupid enough to think that a defamation lawsuit is just like any other civil lawsuit

If this is truly personal to Schneider to such a degree that he'd risk doing it for free, I can't help but wonder if he actually sought out Monty, rather than the other way around.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

If this is truly personal to Schneider to such a degree that he'd risk doing it for free, I can't help but wonder if he actually sought out Monty, rather than the other way around.

I’d love for evidence of that to emerge and turn this into even more of a shit show.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

If this is truly personal to Schneider to such a degree that he'd risk doing it for free, I can't help but wonder if he actually sought out Monty, rather than the other way around.

His judgment is so fucking clouded he made himself a fact witnesses along with his whole firm and wife.

Monty might have to get new counsel

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

His judgment is so fucking clouded he made himself a fact witnesses along with his whole firm and wife.

Monty might have to get new counsel

Bite your tongue! This is the BEST lawyer for Monetgraph.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

His judgment is so fucking clouded he made himself a fact witnesses along with his whole firm and wife.

Monty might have to get new counsel

The problem with that is we have a decent idea of how much Rekieta's spending on representation. It's one thing to say "I'm going to try to haul your wife in for a deposition, Schneider!" but even if Rekieta succeeds in compelling a deposition, what is going to happen? Nick pays Randazza for several hours of asking Schneider's wife what specifically the lowlights of the local drunk lawyer man were that he had her watch?

Nick has paid through the nose for this case as it is.

I do wonder at what point he'll start musing about bringing in local counsel, maybe the guy who sponsored Randazza.

 

[AnOminous]

edit: Nick announces he is "definitely" filing an ethics complaint against David Schneider. This lolsuit just got even more fun.

Oh good, dueling "ethics" complaints between two retards. Congratulations, you have definitely won another lolcow trophy here Nick. Lmao what a retard.

He is stupid enough to think that a defamation lawsuit is just like any other civil lawsuit

This part is definitely the case. He was apparently completely unaware of the heightened pleading standards for defamation claims, and utterly failed in his original complaint even to state a single defamatory statement, merely reiterating the elements of the tort (something that would generally be sufficient under notice pleading standards).

He appears to have done some research since then, but it was absolutely retarded to do that.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

The problem with that is we have a decent idea of how much Rekieta's spending on representation. It's one thing to say "I'm going to try to haul your wife in for a deposition, Schneider!" but even if Rekieta succeeds in compelling a deposition, what is going to happen? Nick pays Randazza for several hours of asking Schneider's wife what specifically the lowlights of the local drunk lawyer man were that he had her watch?

Nick has paid through the nose for this case as it is.

I do wonder at what point he'll start musing about bringing in local counsel, maybe the guy who sponsored Randazza.

The point is that he can force Schneider to withdraw.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

The point is that he can force Schneider to withdraw.

Or he will dig in...

I hope the judge does not force him to do so, and he just bitch slaps them all for the noncery...

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

The problem with that is we have a decent idea of how much Rekieta's spending on representation. It's one thing to say "I'm going to try to haul your wife in for a deposition, Schneider!" but even if Rekieta succeeds in compelling a deposition, what is going to happen? Nick pays Randazza for several hours of asking Schneider's wife what specifically the lowlights of the local drunk lawyer man were that he had her watch?

I don't think they can do that due to marital privilege (it's why @Ron Toye was vulnerable because he and Monica Rial aren't married and don't have it).

 

[Balldo's Gate]

The point is that he can force Schneider to withdraw.

He can't "force Schneider to withdraw".

He can waste more of his Depp money to pay for Randazza to try and get the judge to do that. Good luck with that, it turns out that none of this has any actual relevance to the case.

I don't think they can do that due to marital privilege (it's why @Ron Toye was vulnerable because he and Monica Rial aren't married and don't have it).

According to Rekieta last night, there is no marital privilege in civil cases. He must have been specifically referring to Minnesota and I assumed he would know as a Minnesota lawyer, but who knows?

In any case, he's welcome to waste more of his Depp money to have Randazza try and get the judge to compel the plaintiff's lawyer's wife to be deposed about why she watched a Youtube video and what she thought about it.

 

[Spaded Dave]

According to Rekieta last night, there is no marital privilege in civil cases. He must have been specifically referring to Minnesota and I assumed he would know as a Minnesota lawyer, but who knows?

Well then he's just plain wrong.

Sec. 595.02 MN Statutes

Subdivision 1.Competency of witnesses.​

Every person of sufficient understanding, including a party, may testify in any action or proceeding, civil or criminal, in court or before any person who has authority to receive evidence, except as provided in this subdivision:

(a) A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, without the consent of the other, be examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage. This exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other, nor to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other or against a child of either or against a child under the care of either spouse, nor to a criminal action or proceeding in which one is charged with homicide or an attempt to commit homicide and the date of the marriage of the defendant is subsequent to the date of the offense, nor to an action or proceeding for nonsupport, neglect, dependency, or termination of parental rights.

Now, whether or not this would be relevant given that the lawyer isn't the Plaintiff and Monty is the Plaintiff or any other type of shenanigans that I don't have the education to expound on is a different matter. But the only exception to this rule they have listed is the obvious "If the conflict is between two married people then obviously they can testify against each other" and then the "this involves children" example. But it pretty clearly (to me) has nothing to do with civil vs criminal.

Feel free to call me a retard and correct me if I'm reading this wrong though.

 

[feral cat #6385]

He can't "force Schneider to withdraw".

He can waste more of his Depp money to pay for Randazza to try and get the judge to do that. Good luck with that, it turns out that none of this has any actual relevance to the case.


According to Rekieta last night, there is no marital privilege in civil cases. He must have been specifically referring to Minnesota and I assumed he would know as a Minnesota lawyer, but who knows?

In any case, he's welcome to waste more of his Depp money to have Randazza try and get the judge to compel the plaintiff's lawyer's wife to be deposed about why she watched a Youtube video and what she thought about it.

Whatever Nick says about the law, assume the opposite is true. Call it Rekieta's law if you will. It amazes me how much money he is willing to burn playing fuck, fuck games. Hopefully he doesn't stop. I want Nicky to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Maybe even the world court.