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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
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.
If we're really splitting hairs about whether "resident" means "domicile" or not, he didn't claim that Monty was domiciled in Colorado, he claimed that Monty was residing in Colorado. It was false.

And this is severely negligent at best, because "I didn't know that Monty wasn't planning to return to Colorado until I asked him" means that he could've chosen at any point to ask his client in what state he was domiciled and neglected to find out until after he found out that he had already made material misstatements in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anonymong
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.
Residency is legally defined in any number of ways. I think focusing so much on what he said is generally a waste of time. They should be looking at the details of how he lives (drivers license, taxes, property and so on) to legally prove what they need to prove about residency rather than bothering with what he said about it. People are always going to try to claim things about residency that are to their benefit.

The Ethics complaint to me always seemed a lame way to go. The ethics people are just going to see these issues as things that should be decided by the judge in the context of the case. And if the judge lays into him about it enough, then it might be time for an ethics complaint in the aftermath.
 
Re. Nick's proposed Go Fund Me. Even if he manages to persuade his leathery bodied wine-moms to stump up the cash to pay for his Lolsuit, does he not think that'll have an impact on his income? When you're begging from the public and some loser thinks their parasocial relationship with you is worth sending you $20 in support, they're going to send $20 to you as a superchat, or they're going to donate $20 to your GFM. They aren't going to double their donations to $40 just because you've got a lawsuit to fund. These poor saps don't have rich parents and trust funds -- and they've got bills to pay.
Nick probably views this like the Vic case where the GFM made a ton of money and then Nick made a ton of money off super chats. But that's different, because Nick actually wasn't a party in the case so people probably didn't view it as double dipping in the same way. Also Nick literally dared Monty to "sue me if you want".

Nick should have swallowed his pride and offered Monty like $20-30k to go quietly away. Monty probably would have taken that, and it's probably more than he'll get even if he wins the case, but now Nick is likely going to have to spend vastly more than that in legal fees, go through a potentially grueling discovery process, and may still lose the case anyway. And if this goes to trial, Monty might end up with more than $20-30k in free publicity.
 
Nick should have swallowed his pride and offered Monty like $20-30k to go quietly away. Monty probably would have taken that, and it's probably more than he'll get even if he wins the case, but now Nick is likely going to have to spend vastly more than that in legal fees, go through a potentially grueling discovery process, and may still lose the case anyway. And if this goes to trial, Monty might end up with more than $20-30k in free publicity.

When I was younger and stupider, back in the days of Usenet before the web really existed, I posted something that a very litigious person believed was defamatory. The internet seemed like the wild west back then, and people thought they could do and say whatever the hell they liked.

This guy was an academic. He flirted with trollish posting, and in response, people would post defamatory comments about him and/or his wife. He'd take them to court as a pro-se litigant -- and he'd win. Of course, he's in the UK where the defamation laws are more stringent, but he collected not insignificant sums. Generally, he'd get summary judgements, but in once instance, he couldn't identify the offender and so he complained to the biggest British ISP of the time, who refused to take down the offending material. He sued them for defamation -- and eventually, they settled. They paid him £15k for the libel and £250k for his legal expenses. He made legal history.

At the time, I didn't apologize and I didn't take my comment down. I think he decided my comment was borderline defamatory but not a sure thing. Today, I like to think I wouldn't say something I believed could be interpreted as defamatory on line. But if I did, I'd apologize as soon as I got that letter from the other side's lawyer. And if it took stumping up a few thousand to make that shit go away, I'd be taking a hammer to my piggy bank as soon as was humanly possible. I bet Rekeita could have made this whole thing go away with just a public apology. Now he's spent $50k with no end in sight and even if he wins, he'll still be a lolcow who spent a kings ransom tilting at fucking windmills.
 
I heard him peeling that banana before it was visible. Thought “Of course he’s clueless enough to eat a banana on video.” Did NOT expect the lustful look he gave it before he put it in his mouth.

Nick should be angry at himself for getting drunk constantly and making disastrous choices when he does. I’m not saying that every time he gets drunk he gets himself in trouble. But every time he gets himself into trouble, he’s drunk. They’re not unrelated.
 
I bet Rekeita could have made this whole thing go away with just a public apology. Now he's spent $50k with no end in sight and even if he wins, he'll still be a lolcow who spent a kings ransom tilting at fucking windmills.
He thought the Monty business would be a new Lolsuit that he could grift off of. In his mind, a waterfall of superchats would flow in while he went on drunken rants about how the opposing lawyer was a faggot or the judge a cunt. Mirth spreading through the audience, the superberries would be innumerable.

And, indeed, it might have worked that way if this was a year ago. A lolsuit was what got Rekeita started, and it was what the old audience wanted most of all. It would have been fun. But the last six months of drug, alcohol, and testicle abuse have chased away the old core audience that would have enjoyed (and thrown money at him for) this kind of retarded legal drama.

Instead, now no one's having fun except we humble Farmers. Nick looks consistently strung out as he joylessly balances substance abuse and fumbling the case. He (belatedly) hires a massively overpriced celeb lawyer for what should be a simple matter. He puts even less effort than usual on the streams (if that is possible), and misses a weeks worth of streams when he goes off to poorly organized roastie meetup events in Vegas. His remaining locals faithful, a collection of aging women, dysgenic autists, and the legitimately mentally ill, are uninterested in legal matters, and just want their law-pope internet daddy to validate them. There is no mirth from the audience, but neurotic whining, indifference, and boredom. Worst of all, the superchats remain a small fraction of what they could have been.

Our boy is down bad...
 
Nick probably views this like the Vic case where the GFM made a ton of money and then Nick made a ton of money off super chats. But that's different, because Nick actually wasn't a party in the case so people probably didn't view it as double dipping in the same way. Also Nick literally dared Monty to "sue me if you want".

Nick should have swallowed his pride and offered Monty like $20-30k to go quietly away. Monty probably would have taken that, and it's probably more than he'll get even if he wins the case, but now Nick is likely going to have to spend vastly more than that in legal fees, go through a potentially grueling discovery process, and may still lose the case anyway. And if this goes to trial, Monty might end up with more than $20-30k in free publicity.
And, indeed, it might have worked that way if this was a year ago. A lolsuit was what got Rekeita started, and it was what the old audience wanted most of all. It would have been fun. But the last six months of drug, alcohol, and testicle abuse have chased away the old core audience that would have enjoyed (and thrown money at him for) this kind of retarded legal drama.

Instead, now no one's having fun except we humble Farmers. Nick looks consistently strung out as he joylessly balances substance abuse and fumbling the case. He (belatedly) hires a massively overpriced celeb lawyer for what should be a simple matter. He puts even less effort than usual on the streams (if that is possible), and misses a weeks worth of streams when he goes off to poorly organized roastie meetup events in Vegas. His remaining locals faithful, a collection of aging women, dysgenic autists, and the legitimately mentally ill, are uninterested in legal matters, and just want their law-pope internet daddy to validate them. There is no mirth from the audience, but neurotic whining, indifference, and boredom. Worst of all, the superchats remain a small fraction of what they could have been.
It's not just the costs and double dipping imo, Vic was a widely known and liked voice actor so there was already a large potential audience out there for an attorney willing to say "Vic's case is solid and here's why". The GFM helped Nick connect with those viewers and earn their goodwill.

That doesn't work when the plaintiff is a nobody like Montagraph - Randazza's offhand mentions of this suit and coverage from other Lawtubers might get Nick some attention and donations beyond his regular viewerbase but it'll still be a tiny fraction of what he got in Weeb Wars.

Edit: To add @Phillip Green ninja-ing me and another note: Nick has had problems getting viewers interested for years, not just after he started to decline - he couldn't even maintain interest in his coverage of CWC's arrest and that was literally international news. His success is starting to look more like being in the right place at the right time than any sort of legal or media brilliance; even if he weren't collapsing in front of us "hope for a massive lolsuit" is not a viable business model.

Edit x2: I don't agree that this suit would have gone over well with the old core audience. With the Maddox suit the plaintiff was suing for $20 million because people kept calling him a cuck. Oh and his lawyer didn't even know how to use apostrophes properly. You don't need to know the first thing about Maddox to realize that was a lolsuit. Here, yes Montagraph is a lolcow but his defamation suit is based on Nick's claims that he is a child sex abuser - at least to me that sounds like a credible suit, even if the plaintiff is a weirdo. Nick's streams devolving from upbeat fun to a drunken mess was just gasoline on that fire.
 
Last edited:
But if I did, I'd apologize as soon as I got that letter from the other side's lawyer. And if it took stumping up a few thousand to make that shit go away, I'd be taking a hammer to my piggy bank as soon as was humanly possible.
It's a societal difference, with the large contingent of "FUCK OFF" types in the US who are easily capable and willing of lethal violence you really got to be careful before doing something stupid like Nick did with Monty by poking him incessantly. Personally, I'm suprised Monty didn't decide to just drive up to MN and blast Nick's brains out on a wall with a firearm. Think of it like mutually assured destruction almost.
Fortunately for us this also leads to hilarious shit in the US like the dumpster defenders, the poacher who got got his pickup pushed into an embankment by a farmer with a tractor, rigging flashbangs in your car to deter thieves, bulldozing your town officials' buildings the American way or shooting up youtube because they took your ad-revenue.
He thought the Monty business would be a new Lolsuit that he could grift off of.
His brain skipped the part about "Someone infamous (that his viewbase and adjacent universally hates)" before the part about "suing him". Most people dislike Monty (He's legit insane) or haven't heard of him. Now, if Keffals, Binger, or the DNC (Over his muh election boomer vids) sued him? I'd think most of his audience would have to serriously consider if they would donate only to spite the plaintiff.
 
His brain skipped the part about "Someone infamous (that his viewbase and adjacent universally hates)" before the part about "suing him". Most people dislike Monty (He's legit insane) or haven't heard of him. Now, if Keffals, Binger, or the DNC (Over his muh election boomer vids) sued him? I'd think most of his audience would have to serriously consider if they would donate only to spite the plaintiff.
I find it hard to say most of his audience (who recognize Monty) hate Montegraph. Monty was that crazy old man who thought poorly photoshopped memes would show those evil men what's for! It was incredibly hard to take any threats seriously, and Nick would cheerfully show what Monty has made for him today as a funny side note in his streams. The Sweaty Sausage Squad picture with Nick's face photoshopped onto a Humpty Dumpty egg was endearing, at the time.
 
Nick having to sell the balldo mobile and 1 or more houses due to legal fees or judgments against him.
The court orders Nick to give Monty the Balldo, and he fucks a watermelon with it.
And this is severely negligent at best, because "I didn't know that Monty wasn't planning to return to Colorado until I asked him" means that he could've chosen at any point to ask his client in what state he was domiciled and neglected to find out until after he found out that he had already made material misstatements in court.
The question remains as to his state of mind when he made those representations. A lawyer's duty to put at least minimal efforts into verifying facts does not require him to be Sherlock Holmes.

The time for filing an ethics complaint is after actually developing these facts.

My personal opinion is the guy is a lying sack of shit, but running crying to mommy before even figuring this out (in a case where the facts are currently being developed) is bullshit.
 
Last edited:
I find it hard to say most of his audience (who recognize Monty) hate Montegraph. Monty was that crazy old man who thought poorly photoshopped memes would show those evil men what's for! It was incredibly hard to take any threats seriously, and Nick would cheerfully show what Monty has made for him today as a funny side note in his streams. The Sweaty Sausage Squad picture with Nick's face photoshopped onto a Humpty Dumpty egg was endearing, at the time.
When I mean "dislike" I mean they just didn't like him. Not as in "against the wall" Duncan or Keffals.

I'm just saying that while we make fun of idiots online all the time, Nick's doing it when they know who he is in real life from his own volition (and easily can find his home address). Not the brightest idea but hey, I'm not some social media expert who's job is the make fun of people like Monty and Jack Murphy. I've always considered Monty to be a bit more dangerous than your regular retard since he did attack his parents before if I recollect correctly. I still consider Frank Hassle/Cart Narc fucking with Boogie to be retarded (but funny for us).
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Andrews Stan
If we're really splitting hairs about whether "resident" means "domicile" or not, he didn't claim that Monty was domiciled in Colorado, he claimed that Monty was residing in Colorado. It was false.

And this is severely negligent at best, because "I didn't know that Monty wasn't planning to return to Colorado until I asked him" means that he could've chosen at any point to ask his client in what state he was domiciled and neglected to find out until after he found out that he had already made material misstatements in court.
Schrader will likely be protected by the simple fact that he surely told Monty to read the first affidavit which swore to Colorado residency, and tell him if anything is wrong/needs changed. If Monty is going to sign a false affidavit what chance does his lawyer have of getting the real story?
 
My psonal opinion is the guy is a lying sack of shit, but running crying to mommy before even figuring this out (in a case where the facts are currently being developed) is bullshit.
My personal theory is that Nick told Randazza he didn't want to pay for the Colorado stuff any more. There's a good chance that the research involved there was a substantial fraction of the price of that brief.

I have known more than a few Jews who try to pull that shit with their lawyer, and sometimes it works (it wouldn't here, but Randazza would rather direct that animosity elsewhere - $1k/hour lawyers are good at that).
 
The question remains as to his state of mind when he made those representations. A lawyer's duty to put at least minimal efforts into verifying facts does not require him to be Sherlock Holmes.
We're talking about the same lying piece of shit who argued that the reason Nick's using sworn statements instead of affidavits is because lawyers don't sign their name on shit unless they personally know it to be true and accurate.
Schrader will likely be protected by the simple fact that he surely told Monty to read the first affidavit which swore to Colorado residency, and tell him if anything is wrong/needs changed. If Monty is going to sign a false affidavit what chance does his lawyer have of getting the real story?
Well, sure. All he had to do was to come clean and admit that his client is a lying liar who lies.

Except he didn't do that, he continued to lie, while trying to say that they weren't lies.
 
Schrader will likely be protected by the simple fact that he surely told Monty to read the first affidavit which swore to Colorado residency, and tell him if anything is wrong/needs changed. If Monty is going to sign a false affidavit what chance does his lawyer have of getting the real story?
Also... I could be misremembering, but when did this happen? The first affidavit that Monty swore to was the one they filed in response to the anti-SLAPP motion. Prior to that, only the complaints said anything about where Monty was residing, and he didn't sign those, Schneider did.
 
My personal theory is that Nick told Randazza he didn't want to pay for the Colorado stuff any more. There's a good chance that the research involved there was a substantial fraction of the price of that brief.
I would agree that the research in the direction would have been costly. It would become progressively more costly if they continued on in the direction. I'm sure it would have been incredibly interesting to Randazza to pursue those ideas through briefs and up & down the whole court system. To potentially break new legal ground in interstate defamation cases. But Nick doesn't have the money for that kind of game and the stakes at play in the case don't justify it.
 
Schrader will likely be protected by the simple fact that he surely told Monty to read the first affidavit which swore to Colorado residency, and tell him if anything is wrong/needs changed. If Monty is going to sign a false affidavit what chance does his lawyer have of getting the real story?
There is no evidence I'm aware of that Monty's lawyer deliberately lied to the court about that in the initial and amended complaints and I don't see any reason why there would be. I do think he was being deliberately disingenuous when he said that Rekieta might have Monty's Illinois address from the ethics complaint when he could have just asked Monty what address he used first, but that happened after the fact.

On the other hand Monty probably will just claim ignorance about what it means to be a resident of a state, which he can back up by the fact that he still has a Colorado drivers license and doesn't have one from Illinois.

It sucks for Rekieta but them's the breaks. Lawyers with hourly fees similar to Randazza usually don't get wasted making complex legal arguments in a case like this that is a total lolsuit. In the cases they are usually retained for, "the plaintiff reveals he is secretly a resident of a different state, potentially rendering your motion moot" is not something that happens that often.
 
Back