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

[Owlbear]

The Colorado shit makes the motion completely convoluted. I'm looking forward to the funniest possible outcome: the judge rejects the motion, but invites Nick to spend another $50,000 having Randazza research and craft a new MTD under Minnesota law.

The whole "public figure" theory is also nuts to me. Something like 100,000 people have heard of Monty, and all of them have heard of him through Nick and other youtubers calling him a pedo. The NYT tried the same thing to those school kids and lost at this stage. It turns out you might not necessarily get to use the "public figure" defense when your defamation is what made someone a public figure.

What was missing was any sort of legal theory as to how calling someone a pedophile wasn't per se defamatory. That's where I would have expected Randazza to earn his money, but it seems like he has chosen to just go after dumb little procedural things and say "hurr durr muh public figure."

 

[mindlessobserver]

The document is also just too busy. It would have been better to stepwise proceed with first getting an acceptance of colorado anti-SLAPP rather than doing a combined motion that tries to argue both for Colorado Law and for a summary judgement based on Monty being a public figure.

Brevity is the soul of wit. Something that often gets forgotten in legal briefs it seems. Just say what you want the judge to do, why its important he do so, and why the law supports that he does it. You don't need to write War and Peace here.

 

[Swole McPole]

The Colorado shit makes the motion completely convoluted. I'm looking forward to the funniest possible outcome: the judge rejects the motion, but invites Nick to spend another $50,000 having Randazza research and craft a new MTD under Minnesota law.

I don't understand why they're putting so much emphasis on the fact that Monty lives in Colorado. Monty didn't utter the defamatory statements -- Nick did, and Nick lives in Minnesota. Why would Minnesota NOT be the most appropriate place to sue?

Also, like @Owlbear, I was surprised there was no argument as to why this case that's before the Minnesota courts does not constitute defamation pro se. If, as seems highly likely to me, the argument that Monty is a public figure is not persuasive, surely they've got nothing?

Also: if I was the judge in this case, when I looked at the list of filings, I'd strongly suspect these two asshole lawyers were trolling me for lols. I'd be happy to give them all the fucking lols they want. Drexel could advise on a safeword they could use for when the financial pain of the lols becomes unbearable. Maybe 'uncle' would work?

 

[Strix454]

I don't understand why they're putting so much emphasis on the fact that Monty lives in Colorado. Monty didn't utter the defamatory statements -- Nick did, and Nick lives in Minnesota. Why would Minnesota NOT be the most appropriate place to sue?

The other part of it is that even if the judge accepted Colorado law as the basis for the case, I don't think Nick's side has a good argument in favor of an anti-SLAPP dismissal of the case. The standard for slapp is to protect speech that is "on a matter of public concern". Making a statement of fact claiming that a person has committed a crime as Nick did doesn't really meet that standard.

 

[AnOminous]

The document is also just too busy. It would have been better to stepwise proceed with first getting an acceptance of colorado anti-SLAPP rather than doing a combined motion that tries to argue both for Colorado Law and for a summary judgement based on Monty being a public figure.

I very much like the font and kerning. It's a very pretty document. I hope it was worth the price.

 

[talk talk talk]

I've seen worse. Of course, I've read Russtards' and Smelly's filings, so the standard is pretty low around here.

 

[TheOtherSideofMakeBelieve]

The whole "public figure" theory is also nuts to me. Something like 100,000 people have heard of Monty, and all of them have heard of him through Nick and other youtubers calling him a pedo. The NYT tried the same thing to those school kids and lost at this stage. It turns out you might not necessarily get to use the "public figure" defense when your defamation is what made someone a public figure.

The main difference between this and the schoolkids, I would think, is that Monty personally interjected himself into Nick's streams and community leading to Nick discovering who he is. Nick didn't just randomly start calling Monty a pedophile for no reason followed by Monty trying to interact to defend his name or something like that. He's not a public figure in the strictest sense of the words but I think by current rules on limited purpose public figures it's a very hard argument for him to not qualify because of how he's handled himself

I don't understand why they're putting so much emphasis on the fact that Monty lives in Colorado. Monty didn't utter the defamatory statements -- Nick did, and Nick lives in Minnesota. Why would Minnesota NOT be the most appropriate place to sue?

You sue where the damage occurs. Monty's damage in general is probably nothing, but Minnesota in particular is absolutely going to be nothing. Attempting to sue in Minnesota, combined with not stating damages in the first place to avoid diversity jurisdiciton, is a pretty clear case of forum shopping since it's the only locale that Monty could have chosen without an anti-slapp

 

[Kosher Salt]

The main difference between this and the schoolkids, I would think, is that Monty personally interjected himself into Nick's streams and community leading to Nick discovering who he is. Nick didn't just randomly start calling Monty a pedophile for no reason followed by Monty trying to interact to defend his name or something like that. He's not a public figure in the strictest sense of the words but I think by current rules on limited purpose public figures it's a very hard argument for him to not qualify because of how he's handled himself

No, the main difference is that Monty was known to be a creepy dude who made a snuff porn film involving an apparent child actor, about a decade before Nick had ever heard of him. The idea that Monty can't be a public figure because Nick's allegedly defamatory statements can't make him a public figure, as if there wasn't a decade-old public controversy around him already (a controversy which he participated in, long before Nick got wind of him), is retarded.

 

[Swole McPole]

You sue where the damage occurs. Monty's damage in general is probably nothing, but Minnesota in particular is absolutely going to be nothing. Attempting to sue in Minnesota, combined with not stating damages in the first place to avoid diversity jurisdiciton, is a pretty clear case of forum shopping since it's the only locale that Monty could have chosen without an anti-slapp

Thanks, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone explain why there was this focus on attempting to get it out of Minnesota. It just seemed odd to me. Of course, I guess 'where the damage occurs' is somewhat subjective and somewhat arbitrary when you're talking about something that happens on the internet.

But given this, why would Amber Heard's lawyers agree to let Depp sue her in Virginia? If the damage occurred anywhere, surely it occurred in Hollywood, where he lived and her defamation impacted on his career? Hard to see that Depp suffered much damage at all in Virginia. I always assumed was there because the Washington Post had headquarters there or something. OK, on Googling, I see that Wikipedia says that the rationale was that Virginia was where the Washington Post 's print edition and their online edition are both published in Fairfax County. It seems to me that if it's reasonable for Depp to sue there, it just be just as reasonable for Monty to sue Nick where he produces his online streams? If anything, it seems to me to be the most obvious venue.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

No, the main difference is that Monty was known to be a creepy dude who made a snuff porn film involving an apparent child actor,

I mean, I'll not contest "creepy dude" part, but if he was known to have made that, he'd be in jail right now. I do not think you can watch it (it's on this site BTW) and honestly come to the conclusion that he must have lied when he said the woman was in her 30s when the video was made, much less that anyone was in any actual danger during the making of the video.

I think what you mean by "Monty was known..." was not that Monty was actually known to have done that, but that it was alleged to be the case from people who make Monty look well-adjusted.

For instance, in footnote 7 of the reply filed by Randazza yesterday notes that 'others have characterized The Umbrella Man as a "snuff" film.' The link goes to some random obscure Wordpress blog and instead of describing it, I'll just screenshot part of its homepage:



Actually, let me scroll down and screenshot a little more. Here's where the proprietor of this esteemed news outlet announces that because he "Knows More Than Most Humans", "The Firm", whatever that is, is going to "Erase [his] Brain" :



I don't want to mock the guy too much, whoever a poor soul who needs mental health support immediately, but these are literal schizophrenic ramblings. Not close to a reliable source. Yet in Randazza's initial motion to dismiss, he cited this individual prominently, without disclosing that he's clearly insane:



It would be one thing if Randazza was merely arguing that this insane person screaming about Montagraph's filmmaking proves that Monty was a public figure. He appears to be additionally arguing that Rekieta could not damage Montagraph's reputation because it was already damaged by people like this guy.

Earlier in the paragraph from yesterday's filing where footnote 7 appears, he writes: "Plaintiff's reputation is at issue-it is the quintessential claim of damages being made in a defamation case, and Rule 405(a) states that such evidence is admissible." He adds that the "Umbrella Man" evidence is admissible because "the conduct set forth in the exhibits are admissible under Rule 405(b) to prove Quest's conduct".

And Randazza argues in his motion to dismiss that Monty is libel-proof: "Rekieta's statements did not come from out of the blue; Quest's reputation was already in the gutter." He cites back to section 1.1 of his motion, which is the one with the insane person being cited straight above.

The idea that an individual's reputation cannot be damaged by someone with over 450,000 subscribers and 100,000,000 video views on YouTube in part because actual raving schizophrenics had made similar accusations online sounds like the type of argument I'd find on Timothy's blog.

 

[UncleTusky]

But given this, why would Amber Heard's lawyers agree to let Depp sue her in Virginia? If the damage occurred anywhere, surely it occurred in Hollywood, where he lived and her defamation impacted on his career?

They didn't agree to it, they moved for dismissal on grounds that the defamation primarily took place in California and Virginia was an inconvenient state for all parties but the judge denied it.

If the damage occurred anywhere, surely it occurred in Hollywood, where he lived and her defamation impacted on his career? Hard to see that Depp suffered much damage at all in Virginia. I always assumed was there because the Washington Post had headquarters there or something. OK, on Googling, I see that Wikipedia says that the rationale was that Virginia was where the Washington Post 's print edition and their online edition are both published in Fairfax County. It seems to me that if it's reasonable for Depp to sue there, it just be just as reasonable for Monty to sue Nick where he produces his online streams? If anything, it seems to me to be the most obvious venue.

Johnny Depp suing there wasn't just about WaPo being physically located there, it was because Virginia has the country's weakest anti-SLAPP law (tied for last with Maryland) while California has one of the strongest. Regardless of constitutionality or legality, Depp suing for libel in California would have created a prolonged, more expensive trial while Amber Heard's anti-SLAPP motion was resolved and created the small but non-zero chance that he would be personally liable for her attorney's fees if she won under the California Anti-SLAPP law. Filing in Virginia got around most of that, but if Virginia's anti-SLAPP law were as strong as California's I imagine Johnny Depp's attorneys would have just sued in California to avoid disputes over jurisdiction.

 

[sneedem&feedem]

The main difference between this and the schoolkids, I would think, is that Monty personally interjected himself into Nick's streams and community leading to Nick discovering who he is. Nick didn't just randomly start calling Monty a pedophile for no reason followed by Monty trying to interact to defend his name or something like that.

If memory serves, the reason Nick first started covering Montegraph is because Metokur came across him and wanted Nick's take on his legal endeavours. It's not like Montegraph suddenly found Nick out of the blue.

 

[Twitter Is Cancer]

The idea that an individual's reputation cannot be damaged by someone with over 450,000 subscribers and 100,000,000 video views on YouTube in part because actual raving schizophrenics had made similar accusations online sounds like the type of argument I'd find on Timothy's blog.

See, to me, if the best arguments put forward on behalf of the degenerate junkie boozehound Rekieta are on this level, he's fucked.

 

[Strix454]

If memory serves, the reason Nick first started covering Montegraph is because Metokur came across him and wanted Nick's take on his legal endeavours. It's not like Montegraph suddenly found Nick out of the blue.

Back in 2019, Monty somehow found a ten year old video by Jake Morphonios where Morphonios reviewed one of his films & called him a pedo. Monty acted as his own attorney and the complaint was weird but dead on arrival. The complaint was too badly written to go anywhere. The LOLSUIT got the attention of Metokur who used the situation for content and which led him to get Nick's take on all the Monty nonsense.

Monty's case was filed in April and over in June.

So there was an obscure video released in 2010 that a nobody reviewed on youtube and Monty didn't know the review existed until 2019. There was then about three months of pro se lolsuit drama worthy of a mountain jew followed by a few weeks of Metokur and a couple other people laughing at Monty.

And of course a person as insane as Monty did a review of Monty's films in 2016 for a website nobody much looked at.

 

[Owlbear]

But given this, why would Amber Heard's lawyers agree to let Depp sue her in Virginia? If the damage occurred anywhere, surely it occurred in Hollywood, where he lived and her defamation impacted on his career? Hard to see that Depp suffered much damage at all in Virginia. I always assumed was there because the Washington Post had headquarters there or something. OK, on Googling, I see that Wikipedia says that the rationale was that Virginia was where the Washington Post 's print edition and their online edition are both published in Fairfax County. It seems to me that if it's reasonable for Depp to sue there, it just be just as reasonable for Monty to sue Nick where he produces his online streams? If anything, it seems to me to be the most obvious venue.

I'm pretty sure Nick doesn't understand how the idea of "places of business" in corporate law work or interact with the internet. He pretty clearly thinks that because he publishes content online, he has no principal place of business and no location from which his content is published, which would be why the whole Texas LLC thing would work (if he didn't let it expire). In reality, it seems that the same theory as in Depp/Heard applies to the venue here, and Minnesota is a perfectly fine venue for Monty to choose.

There are a whole bunch of rules about forum, but "the location where the injury happened" is usually pretty high up there on the priority list. There are also rules about removing cases to other forums and "convenience" of the forum - you're not supposed to move a lawsuit to a "less convenient" forum for you, and Spicer, MN is a pretty convenient forum for Nick (not in terms of having nice laws, but in terms of his ability to walk to the courthouse). Accusing someone of "forum shopping" only really applies when they go to an absurd forum because it has good laws (like how companies in California routinely sue each other for patent violations in West Texas). This is not an absurd forum at all.

Nick has also talked about going to federal court on diversity jurisdiction recently, and I guess he could do that, but I doubt that forum will have very good rules for him - federal courts are supposed to be terrible with defamation cases. Also Monty is only suing for $50,000, and federal courts have a $75,000 minimum on those grounds, so I guess he's going to try to argue that his damages are actually higher.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Also Monty is only suing for $50,000, and federal courts have a $75,000 minimum on those grounds,

This seems like a strategic move on Monty's lawyer's part to keep the case *out* of federal court. If so, really well played.

 

[Twitter Is Cancer]

This seems like a strategic move on Monty's lawyer's part to keep the case *out* of federal court. If so, really well played.

Much better played than Rekieta, you gotta say. Randazza I am sure is a good attorney in his field but he's like a doctor trying to keep a one lung smoker alive at this point. Rekieta's self hatred is beginning to cause real harm that can't be fixed.

 

[Strix454]

This seems like a strategic move on Monty's lawyer's part to keep the case *out* of federal court. If so, really well played.

Federal court is a two hour drive away (Minneapolis). The federal court would typically hate this kind of case and want it to just go away. By keeping it in state court, he is fighting on his own home ground where he has been in the law for decades. I think there are only three judges there and he almost certainly has been in front of them all. Its also Nick's home ground and he is going to have a reputation within the legal community. There is also the per se defamation precedent in the state courts.
The other massive advantage is the jurisdictional issue. If they had filed anywhere else, they would have faced all kinds of issues with regard to jurisdiction. Issues that could have got the case dismissed.
Its not a usual thing because typically doing a case like this in the defendant's back yard usually raises the legal costs of the plaintiff and lessens the costs of the defendant. Finding a good attorney to sue a plaintiff who is a local attorney - especially in a small town - is also not easy. Many would tend to turn that sort of case down out of loyalties to the local legal community.
The case has become somewhat interesting because so many improbable things have happened to Nick and continue to happen to Nick. When he dared Monty to sue him, nobody could have anticipated the case would have taken this direction.

 

[Owlbear]

I have also heard of people trying to remove cases from state courts to Federal court, then attempting to dismiss the case once it is in Federal court because Federal court is the wrong venue, and it should be in state court. Given the way that Randazza has been behaving about other "technicalities," I wouldn't put it past him to try that angle.

None of this is really going to "set a strong precedent" or "fight for free speech" the way Nick Rekieta was probably expecting, but he would certainly spin it that way if his anti-SLAPP ideas or his venue games work.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Do we have any idea (or estimates) of what this is costing Monty, assuming Schneider is charging the typical Wilmer rates?