I think this got taken out of Elissa’s video. Nick says:
-Montegraph has been called a pedophile for over a decade by many people.
-Monty has lost a lawsuit in which he sued for defamation when someone called him a pedophile.
-The reason Monty lost that lawsuit was because “EVERYBODY THINKS MONTEGRAPH IS A PEDOPHILE!!!”
Your browser is not able to display this video.
But that isn’t true. Montegraph was representing himself, botched it, & the case was dismissed. There is more info in the Montegraph thread OP, but here is the reason according to Null.
From the Elissa video regarding the claim that Schneider was mad about Nick wearing shorts:
-Nick says he didn’t see Schneider that day, only his “assistant or whatever”, later called Schneider’s “clerk”. The person’s specific title aside, how could Schneider opine that a shorts clad Nick “doesn’t look like a real lawyer” if, according to Nick himself, Schneider never saw him? Why would Nick wearing shorts even make Schneider “so mad”?
-So the assistant told Schneider who then told an unmentioned third party who then told Nick? Or…? How did Nick learn this unlikely information? Unless it came from Schneider himself how does he know it is correct?
-About the day with the shorts, Nick said “I walked into his office once. I was representing a client against him. Only one time!” … “I think I was just dropping, I think, if I remember right, I was serving him, a response to interrogatories.”
-Then Nick says the only reason he walked into Schneider’s office wearing shorts was to have the clerk sign acceptance of his interrogatories. (Nick’s own in the Monty suit)
-Which is it? Was he in Schneider’s office on behalf of a client or for himself? (And it has been a good long while since Nick has had “a client”)
-He said it was “summertime”. The Montegraph lawsuit is from Dec. 2022. It would not have been summertime if he was there to drop off anything for himself in the Monty case.