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

[talk talk talk]

Well then he's just plain wrong.

Sec. 595.02 MN Statutes

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.

You're reading it right.

Congratulations! You are better at Evidence than Rackets.

 

[TheClappening]

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.

The difference in the Mignogna case was that the mud slinging was all one sided, and that same wasn't looking to settle on anything resembling reasonable terms.

Nick rolls in the same mud as Monty, and I'm betting he thinks he can grift a net profit from this lawsuit.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Nick rolls in the same mud as Monty, and I'm betting he thinks he can grift a net profit from this lawsuit.

I love cases where shit’s funny regardless of which party is getting pwned at any given moment.

Gotta say, I found Rekeita back in 2018 to be a bit long winded (and a piece of shit for being pals with Dax Herrera) but otherwise benign. I would have never guessed that “Christian Nick” and the mother of his children would soon out themselves as sexual degenerates whose marriage vows they take even less seriously than an iTunes TOS update. Knowing that, I welcome every bit of shit that gets flung at him.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

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...

Schneider has now offered personal knowledge of facts material to the claim being asserted by Monty. Putting all of that stuff in the affidavit was unnecessary.

You can't do that and also seek to represent your client at the same time.

 

[Uncle Buck]

You're reading it right.

Congratulations! You are better at Evidence than Rackets.

He is reading it right, but in making his wife’s alleged opinion on the matter part of his argument, a case can be made that either the wife waved "consent"/spousal privilege or Mountebank’s counsel himself "consented"/breached privilege.

 

[Phony Chicken]

Well then he's just plain wrong.

Sec. 595.02 MN Statutes

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.

Yeah I think you are reading it wrong.

This exception does not apply to a civil action

Pretty clear cut. Don't know how several of you are skipping that part.

Edit: Ignore me, I'm sleep posting.

 

[WTBOnlineFather]

Yeah I think you are reading it wrong.



Pretty clear cut. Don't know how several of you are skipping that part.

It's you who skipped this part:

This exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Yeah I think you are reading it wrong.



Pretty clear cut. Don't know how several of you are skipping that part.

"civil action or proceeding by one against the other" I read it as only applying if a spouse sues the other spouse

 

[Phony Chicken]

"civil action or proceeding by one against the other" I read it as only applying if a spouse sues the other spouse

Yeah. Gotta wake up more before posting. Nick is wrong again.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

He talked about Schneider taking the case because it was personal. He thinks Nick (according to Nick) gives lawyers a bad name. Lol! He also might do a GFM if he doesnt win a dismissal, becuase he has money, but not THAT kind of money...

From the main Rekieta thread: as predicted, it looks like Rekieta is now priming the pumps for a GFM if this doesn't get dismissed.

Schneider has now offered personal knowledge of facts material to the claim being asserted by Monty. Putting all of that stuff in the affidavit was unnecessary.

You can't do that and also seek to represent your client at the same time.

Is the "personal knowledge of facts material to the claim being asserted" is that he reviewed the statements by Rekieta and found them to be "outrageous" (which is language directly relevant to the IIED claim)?

That personal knowledge was already implied by the fact that he agreed to represent Monty in this action.

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.

I remember him saying so confidently there's no privilege, "it's not criminal", that I assumed he must have known what he was talking about. Oh well.

 

[Kosher Salt]

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

If anybody's justified in filing an ethics complaint I'd say Nick is. The opposing party's counsel lied to the court about a material fact in a filing, claiming that Monty resides in Colorado, then backtracked it claiming that he actually resides in Illinois, and finally when called out on this contradiction he tried to say "well at the time I said he resides in Colorado, I knew he was actually residing in Illinois, but it wasn't really a lie because I didn't know that he didn't plan to move back to Colorado until I asked him."

These lies cost Nick a significant chunk of money.

 

[Uncle Buck]

If anybody's justified in filing an ethics complaint I'd say Nick is.

Plus Rackets' complaint has the advantage of being against an attorney that he's actively involved in litigation with who may have engaged in unethical behavior within the scope of his practice, as opposed to Mountebank's complaint which he made without having been involved in any litigation with Nick at the time and amounts to little more than, "he's a jerk and he hurt my feelings while being an attorney".

 

[Kosher Salt]

Plus Rackets' complaint has the advantage of being against an attorney that he's actively involved in litigation with who may have engaged in unethical behavior within the scope of his practice, as opposed to Mountebank's complaint which he made without having been involved in any litigation with Nick at the time and amounts to little more than, "he's a jerk and he hurt my feelings while being an attorney".

Oh yeah, for sure. I probably should've put more emphasis than just "the opposing party's counsel" on how important it is that all of this is directly originating from Schneider's practice of law in a case involving Nick himself.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

From the main Rekieta thread: as predicted, it looks like Rekieta is now priming the pumps for a GFM if this doesn't get dismissed.


Is the "personal knowledge of facts material to the claim being asserted" is that he reviewed the statements by Rekieta and found them to be "outrageous" (which is language directly relevant to the IIED claim)?

That personal knowledge was already implied by the fact that he agreed to represent Monty in this action.


I remember him saying so confidently there's no privilege, "it's not criminal", that I assumed he must have known what he was talking about. Oh well.

Going to disagree slightly. 'Personal knowledge of facts' cannot mean 'I know about it (from someone else)'. 'Personal' has to mean firsthand knowledge of some sort or with some connection to the case/controversy BEFORE the client walks in the door.

Otherwise barristers would be deposed in the US as a matter of course.

Nick's beat argument is 'he made this personal'. Nick didn't make him bring his wife into this and go the extra step of relying on her for support to the claim.

I highly doubt David will be depose in the main case, but je might get grilled by the judge if they consider sanctions. Barristers have an implied duty of candor, so they are not put under oath unless it is a big deal

 

[talk talk talk]

Oi Guv'nor! No barristers here in Burgerland.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

David Schneider appears to have broken Rekieta. He's reduced to quietly seething throughout this clip, including about how Schneider used to have been a Super Lawyer.

EDIT: Some more details in there, Rekieta confirms someone contacted Schneider and Schneider told him he agreed to take the case because he thinks Rekieta is a bad representative of the profession. I believe this is a reference to Spectre, who said he called Schneider and talked to him. If so, Spectre got "yelled at" by Randazza.

Going to disagree slightly. 'Personal knowledge of facts' cannot mean 'I know about it (from someone else)'. 'Personal' has to mean firsthand knowledge of some sort or with some connection to the case/controversy BEFORE the client walks in the door.

Otherwise barristers would be deposed in the US as a matter of course.

Yes, exactly.

 

[AnOminous]

The opposing party's counsel lied to the court about a material fact in a filing, claiming that Monty resides in Colorado, then backtracked it claiming that he actually resides in Illinois, and finally when called out on this contradiction he tried to say "well at the time I said he resides in Colorado, I knew he was actually residing in Illinois, but it wasn't really a lie because I didn't know that he didn't plan to move back to Colorado until I asked him."

That's actually a relevant issue, though. You are not necessarily a domiciliary of the state where you are currently residing, and your intent to return is what makes you continue to be a domiciliary of the state where you plan to return.

It is hardly ripe for an ethics complaint where there is an ongoing proceeding where the facts haven't even yet been developed. It's a pissy, spiteful complaint that might not even be factually correct.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

David Schneider appears to have broken Rekieta. He's reduced to quietly seething throughout this clip, including about how Schneider used to have been a Super Lawyer.

EDIT: Some more details in there, Rekieta confirms someone contacted Schneider and Schneider told him he agreed to take the case because he thinks Rekieta is a bad representative of the profession. I believe this is a reference to Spectre, who said he called Schneider and talked to him. If so, Spectre got "yelled at" by Randazza.


Yes, exactly.

Obligatory, Spec Ops Spectre deserves to be yelled at for his constant meddling.

The man seems... fine... by himself, but he sticks his finger into EVERY pile of shit he can.

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

Can we have a poll in this thread about the desired outcome? For example, decisive Rekieta or Montagraph victory and a few other options.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Can we have a poll in this thread about the desired outcome? For example, decisive Rekieta or Montagraph victory and a few other options.

Do not set expectations and you will not be disappointed.
The chips will fall where they may.
Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.