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

[Kosher Salt]

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.

Would he? I'm not saying that it's a "real" snuff film (i.e. someone actually died), or that it's sexually explicit material of a child. I'm saying that's what it's supposed to look like, though. There are plenty of movies that show someone dying, but this one seems particularly devoid of any quality apart from appealing to people who want to watch what appears to be the torture and murder of a child, and horrifying anyone else. Maybe that's just because Monty is a terrible movie director, and maybe we just can't appreciate the meaning that it was supposed to convey.

I can't remember whether there's actual nudity (kf is being too slow to play back the video that you linked), but artistic/cinematographic nudity (with no overtly sexual poses or actions) is a gray area - see for instance the Nirvana album cover, or the famous Vietnam war photo. There are even occasionally films that have nudity involving minor actors. And Monty himself has even bragged about how shooting nude models is fine because he gets the model release form signed, and how if the model is a child, their parent has to sign the form to approve of the shoot. And technically that may be accurate, but it doesn't make him any less a creep.

 

[Anticipointment]

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

Nick says Schneider hasn’t yet received any money from Monty & took the case on contingency. (Not sure if Nick would be privy to this info or not though) Nick said this when he was yelling about what a retard Schneider is, because in Nick’s mind, it is clear that Schneider will lose & won’t get a penny for his troubles.

I can’t add quotes in an edit but regarding the post from @Kosher Salt that is just above mine:
“And Monty himself has even bragged about how shooting nude models is fine because he gets the model release form signed, and how if the model is a child, their parent has to sign the form to approve of the shoot.”

Even if a parent says it’s ok for a child to model nude, doesn’t make it ok, that’s still child porn. But I’m curious if anyone has ever confirmed the existence of these photos, & if they do exist, how does anyone know they are underage models? Is there a video of Monty talking about the photos or did someone just say that he said it? (Maybe I’ll have to look back at the first lawsuit papers) Monty has said a lot of things for attention (& usually not the positive kind) so I’m not even sure if it can be taken as fact that him as a photographer of nude models (of any age) is real.

I know Nick submitted all kinds of stuff from the first lawsuit which included a lot of Monty talking under videos from a YouTube account said to be his. How are they sure though? It’s simple to clone a person’s YouTube account in comments & unless the account has a verified mark (his wouldn’t) how can it be said to be Monty for certain?

I haven’t seen the video alleged to be a snuff film (nor do I want to) but I thought it has long been generally acknowledged that nobody died & the girl wasn’t a minor. The video sounds disturbing as hell but there are a million porn titles that say or imply teens are involved yet they are legally adults. People don’t go to jail for making them.

Idk, what is weird to me is if Monty was a pedo it seems like it would be something to do with teen or pre-teen girls. I’m not sure where the “likes to suck little boys penises” comes from? Seems filthy just typing that but such phrases roll off of Nicks tongue so easily, that in & of itself kinda creeps me out, tbh.

Nick’s faggotry has me sounding like I’m defending Monty, feels gross. Just asking questions for legal purposes or if any of these things even matter in that regard.

 

[Nothing To Say Here]

Nick says Schneider hasn’t yet received any money from Monty & took the case on contingency. (Not sure if Nick would be privy to this info or not though) Nick said this when he was yelling about what a retard Schneider is, because in Nick’s mind, it is clear that Schneider will lose & won’t get a penny for his troubles.

If you’re referencing the Elissa Clips video with Potentially Criminal and that F1GBAT idiot, Nick said both that Schneider took the case on contingency, and took it pro bono. Which one is it, because it can’t be both. One was at the beginning of the clip and one was at the end. Nick is a moron and I would take a blind guess from a complete stranger with more validity than Nicks guess.

 

[Strix454]

If you’re referencing the Elissa Clips video with Potentially Criminal and that F1GBAT idiot, Nick said both that Schneider took the case on contingency, and took it pro bono. Which one is it, because it can’t be both. One was at the beginning of the clip and one was at the end. Nick is a moron and I would take a blind guess from a complete stranger with more validity than Nicks guess.

Many of things Nick claims to know about Schneider seem to source back to Spectre06. For whatever reasons of brain damage, Nick trusts Spectre and seems to believe whatever he says.

 

[Swole McPole]

I can't remember whether there's actual nudity (kf is being too slow to play back the video that you linked), but artistic/cinematographic nudity

I watched this relatively recently. The actress/model clearly wasn't a child and there was no nudity visible anywhere that I could see.

As far as artistic/cinematographic merit goes, Monty's little film struck me as being largely worthless and pointless. But I'm a lot more comfortable defending Monty's right to make suggestive movies with adult models, regardless of how tasteless or unpleasant they might be, than I am defending Rekieta's right to defame somebody by falsely accusing them of a heinous crime that they haven't actually committed.

I'm in the UK so my grasp on all this is tentative at best, but it seems to me that the former is precisely what your First Amendment was set up to defend. Defamatory statements, not so much. Pretty sure that I first got interested in Nick precisely because he seemed to be somebody was committed to that kind of First Amendment absolutism that would be defending Monty's right to make creepy movies. His calling him out as a paedo for doing so has always struck me as another example of his rank hypocrisy.

 

[Twitter Is Cancer]

Many of things Nick claims to know about Schneider seem to source back to Spectre06. For whatever reasons of brain damage, Nick trusts Spectre and seems to believe whatever he says.

Rekieta is so desperate to be superior and smug over this local lawyer it's ridiculous. The local lawyer has him beat. In his mind Rekieta is up there with these fantastical legendary lawyers from great cases. But he's just a dysgenic dweeb in a commentary box who never even played the game.

 

[sneedem&feedem]

Nick says Schneider hasn’t yet received any money from Monty & took the case on contingency. (Not sure if Nick would be privy to this info or not though) Nick said this when he was yelling about what a retard Schneider is, because in Nick’s mind, it is clear that Schneider will lose & won’t get a penny for his troubles.

Schneider has already won. If Schneider dislikes Nick even half as much as Nick acts like he does then Schneider won a long time ago. He never took the case expecting a ton of money but if I was Schneider I'd be laughing myself to bed everyday knowing what a thorn in Nick's ass I was. Even if Montegraph loses, that's Montegraph's problem not his.

 

[Dracula's Blood Sucker]

Lion News strikes again?

Steve Quest vs NICHOLAS ROBERT REKIETA, Rekieta Law, LLC You are notified this matter is set for a remote hearing. This hearing will not be in person at the courthouse. Hearing Information April 10, 2023 Motion Hearing 2:00 PM The hearing will be held via Zoom and appearance shall be by video unless otherwise directed with Judicial Officer Jennifer Fischer, Kandiyohi County District Court.
To join by internet: 1. Type https://zoomgov.com/join in your browser’s address bar. 2. Enter the Meeting ID and Meeting Passcode (if asked): 161 918 1925 862437

Take this email as you will.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Rekieta is so desperate to be superior and smug over this local lawyer it's ridiculous. The local lawyer has him beat. In his mind Rekieta is up there with these fantastical legendary lawyers from great cases. But he's just a dysgenic dweeb in a commentary box who never even played the game.

This guy has Rekieta so rattled that he appears to be now co-signing Spectre contacting Schneider because he's trying to use it to buttress his nonsense ethics complaint.

He lied to multiple people, INCLUDING ONE OF MY MODERATORS!

If I'm Schneider, how do I not laugh at that?

Lion News strikes again?

That's nothing private, that looks like it's directly copied and pasted from the hearing notice and can easily be found on MCRO.

 

[Strix454]

Lion News strikes again?

Since Terry Dean Nemmers (aka Lion News) has come up, I'm going to link to one of his greatest hits. Nemmers seeks justice at the local courthouse (from 2011)

Nemmers is legit crazy, a sovereign citizen and lives maybe a half hour from Nick. In the mid-2000s, he was arrested for making his own license plates and attempted at trial to arrest the judge. He is lurking around the edges of Nick's case. He was the source for the weird "machine gun" story about Nick's case. He is best not interacted with or carefully interacted with.

 

[AnOminous]

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".

Unsurprisingly, this is a tendentious argument to get in what looks like scandalous and not terribly probative evidence. This is actually a good way to approach it, because if Monty moves to exclude this evidence of questionable worth, Randazza can fire back with it goes to weight and not admissibility.

This kind of evidence is not likely to impress a judge but could conceivably prejudice a jury.

That's a good reason why even if it's otherwise admissible, there's a good argument its prejudicial impact outweighs its probative content.

Just because something is admissible under a specific rule of evidence doesn't mean it should be admitted, although in a bench trial, judges usually do because they know what weight to assign evidence like this, and it's about zero.

And if Nick gets this to a jury trial the costs go up exponentially. And this all for the "right" to get drunk and falsely accuse some guy of sucking little boys' dicks.

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.

It can't be removed to federal court because there's no federal cause of action and Monty, in a remarkably solid strategic choice for a giant schizo, sued Nick in his home state, and under the forum defendant rule, that precludes removing it under diversity jurisdiction.

Rekieta is so desperate to be superior and smug over this local lawyer it's ridiculous. The local lawyer has him beat.

He almost reminds me of Sam Johnson, at least after the absurdly botched first complaint.

Even if a parent says it’s ok for a child to model nude, doesn’t make it ok, that’s still child porn.

Nude is not necessarily porn, and non-nude is not necessarily not porn. For instance, photographer Jock Sturges was not indicted by a grand jury for nude pictures of adolescent males.

(This should be recontextualized considering that just a couple years ago, he amazingly pled guilty to lewd and lascivious acts on a 14 year old, shocking absolutely nobody.)

 

[waffle]

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

Even if Monty's lawyer asked for a billion dollars they would be kept in state court by the Forum Defendant Rule.

 

[Scotched up Scott]

Nude is not necessarily porn, and non-nude is not necessarily not porn. For instance, photographer Jock Sturges was not indicted by a grand jury for nude pictures of adolescent males.

(This should be recontextualized considering that just a couple years ago, he amazingly pled guilty to lewd and lascivious acts on a 14 year old, shocking absolutely nobody.)

I think the new context might shed some light on the kind of person who would take such pictures. I get some family pics being sketch but the context of the picture making it kosher, but with professional photographs? almost any pro photographer wouldn't touch such an shoot with a infinitely long pole, and good on them for doing that.

I will give you tho that every non nude pic isn't not pornographic. its what got Balenciaga and the movie cuties to be so widely hated. the BDSM bear with the context clues and a movie about a child shaking their ass? yah no to hell with them.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Nick says Schneider hasn’t yet received any money from Monty & took the case on contingency. (Not sure if Nick would be privy to this info or not though)

Nick also commented about Schneider's website saying something to the effect that "you don't pay unless you win," so I got the impression that getting from there to "he took this case on contingency" was an assumption on Nick's part.

Even if a parent says it’s ok for a child to model nude, doesn’t make it ok, that’s still child porn.

That's where the bit about "overtly sexual poses or actions" becomes significant. But perhaps even more significant is the part I didn't say, the "was he jerking off to it" part. If you have a folder full of indisputable kiddie porn, and they happen to find one "artistic" nude in there, they could charge you for possessing that photo, too, and they'd probably win, because you were jerking off to it, and everyone knows it... the jury's not going to buy the "that was art" argument. They're not going to convict on two dozen other possession of child porn charges and say "but he's not guilty on this one particular count, though, that photo wasn't pornographic, it was just a naked kid."

Having a photo of your kid in a bathtub in your family photo album? Pretty well on the safe side of that line. A pedo having the same photo in his stash is probably getting charged though.

 

[Strix454]

Maybe that's just because Monty is a terrible movie director, and maybe we just can't appreciate the meaning that it was supposed to convey.

Its not really difficult to get the meaning he was trying to put on it. There are different clips or different versions of the second video. But the longest version I've seen opens with the Kennedy assassination & Illuminati symbols and ends by playing Sheeple Of America Payday Monsanto. Its not exactly subtle. Neither is "Umbrella Man" because its a shout-out to something from JFK assassination lore.
The stupid moral of his stupid boomer film is the same one boomers have been doing for nearly 50 years. We have all been turned into monsters by the JFK assassination and the deep conspiracy.

Monty has delusions of being a subversive political "artist" but he is just no good at it. Like alot of those kind of people, he tries to imitate what more well-known controversial artists do and fails miserably. He manages to create a creepy and disturbing atmosphere in the film. But I suspect mostly because he is a creepy and disturbing guy IRL.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Nick also commented about Schneider's website saying something to the effect that "you don't pay unless you win," so I got the impression that getting from there to "he took this case on contingency" was an assumption on Nick's part.

Anyone getting shades of the 'there was NO balcony at that hotel!' from the Weeb Wars days? Nick relentlessly pushed that, but if you read the document that MOOnica put out said 'patio'--not 'balcony'.

 

[Owlbear]

Nick also commented about Schneider's website saying something to the effect that "you don't pay unless you win," so I got the impression that getting from there to "he took this case on contingency" was an assumption on Nick's part.

It's very common for workers comp litigators to work on contingency, and people generally don't realize that lawyers often work that way, so it would be surprising for him to not put this on his website.

However, there is a decent chance that he is taking some fraction of this case on contingency (eg working at half rate and taking the other half plus a chunk of the surplus from the excess) or that there is some other form of legal financing involved. Almost every litigator I know has at least some form of "incentivize me to win" payment. We will probably never know for sure how Monty is paying for this, though.

 

[Twitter Is Cancer]

It's very common for workers comp litigators to work on contingency, and people generally don't realize that lawyers often work that way, so it would be surprising for him to not put this on his website.

However, there is a decent chance that he is taking some fraction of this case on contingency (eg working at half rate and taking the other half plus a chunk of the surplus from the excess) or that there is some other form of legal financing involved. Almost every litigator I know has at least some form of "incentivize me to win" payment. We will probably never know for sure how Monty is paying for this, though.

He isn't using embarrassing crowdfunding, and that's another bad sign for Rekieta. No chance of bleeding out the plaintiff or making sure it's a pyrrhic victory for him when Rekieta is the one wasting money (as usual),

 

[Swole McPole]

However, there is a decent chance that he is taking some fraction of this case on contingency (eg working at half rate and taking the other half plus a chunk of the surplus from the excess) or that there is some other form of legal financing involved. Almost every litigator I know has at least some form of "incentivize me to win" payment. We will probably never know for sure how Monty is paying for this, though.

For the longest time, British lawyers weren't allowed to do cases on a contingency fee basis. Then about twenty years ago, the rules changed and they *were* allowed to do it -- initially just for personal injury, but eventually for all civil litigation -- but it's extremely rare for the law firms themselves to fund the case. Generally, it's funded by some kind of financing system, where external bodies evaluate the case, and provided they think it has a strong chance of success (and I'm pretty sure it has to be a better than 50/50 chance), then these companies fund the case.

I'm not sure whether it's wholly funded, or whether the lawyers contribute their labour, these insurers (I seem to recall they describe themselves as insurers, but it's not what we normally think of as insurance) fund the other costs and they split any contingency fees between them. Of course, it's different here in the UK, because you're not just funding your own costs, but if you lose, you're paying for the other sides costs as well. This might be why they call themselves insurers? Because they're insuring against the risk of losing the case?

So I'm curious if Monty's case could have been funded by such an arrangement? If so, wouldn't this mean that the case would not have just been taken on by Schneider, but would also have been overlooked and approved by an insurer who would have funded it because they believe it had a significant chance of succeeding?

 

[Owlbear]

I'm not sure whether it's wholly funded, or whether the lawyers contribute their labour, these insurers (I seem to recall they describe themselves as insurers, but it's not what we normally think of as insurance) fund the other costs and they split any contingency fees between them. Of course, it's different here in the UK, because you're not just funding your own costs, but if you lose, you're paying for the other sides costs as well. This might be why they call themselves insurers? Because they're insuring against the risk of losing the case?

So I'm curious if Monty's case could have been funded by such an arrangement? If so, wouldn't this mean that the case would not have just been taken on by Schneider, but would also have been overlooked and approved by an insurer who would have funded it because they believe it had a significant chance of succeeding?

Litigation financing (which is what we call it here) is very common in the US, too. It's usually hedge fund types here. However, some of these funders also force the lawyers to take some performance-based fees, like "you get a 30% bonus if you win but we get a 30% discount if you lose." I highly doubt that Monty was able to get any litigation financing for this case. However, if one of these hedge fund people hated the Rekietas, they may well have offered him a few hundred thousand to play with.

We obviously don't know exactly what Schneider's arrangement is, but I believe the current "state of the art" in contingency fee work is that if you're taking jobs 100% on contingency, you found a "separate company" to handle the financing, and that company works exactly like a third-party litigation financing firm except that it's controlled by the lawyer. That way, you still have a bill of legal fees to go after the other party (and maybe your client) for - sometimes you get legal fees in the US - and you get some insulation between your legal arm and your finance arm (which lets you ensure that you get paid and protect your law business if you lose a lot of cases).

Low-class contingent fee people just take a cut of the winnings and don't do the accounting shenanigans. Then they submit a fake bill when they move to recover legal fees and don't always succeed. Schneider is probably in this bucket.