- Joined
- Oct 31, 2022
I'm gonna have to give some push back on this. Nick explicitly corrected the record on that. Something he's failed to do for this case many times.
Steve Quest (p/k/a Montagraph) vs. Nicholas Robert Rekieta & Rekieta Law, LLC (2023)
- Thread starter Useful_Mistake
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
"Fake bill" isn't an accurate way of describing it; the recovery is for "reasonable attorney's fees," so you submit what would have been your billed hours and rate if you were doing standard billing, and the judge determines whether or not those were reasonable and adjusts accordingly. That your actual compensation structure was different is a matter between the lawyer and their client, the fee recovery is "what do we think this would normally cost" given the particular circumstances of the case. Some jurisdictions have standard rates for determining what the hourly is, some don't.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
The U.S. was like this for some time, too, under the same ancient doctrine known as champerty, which prohibited lawyers from owning part of a lawsuit where they were representing another party. At least in the case of British lawyers, it was because a lot of old money had basically cheated poor people out of their property generations ago, and lawyers start representing them for a cut of the potential profits, but worse, they started winning.
It was dressed up in some nonsense about ethics, but it was never really about that.
Some vestiges of the doctrine still apply in contract law with contracts that explicitly allow a lawyer to "own" part of a lawsuit, but largely, the doctrine is dead.
In some places, advancing costs is still prohibited under a related doctrine called maintenance.
It's a family of three general doctrines, champerty, barratry, and maintenance, with the second being the only inherently unethical one, which is going around stirring up litigation between third parties. Even that is somewhat tolerated with activist legal groups both on the left and right seeking out sympathetic test cases or, on the less ethical end, hiring a "Slippin' Jimmy" type to go around looking for even the most trivial ADA violations to make a case to sue about.
There's generally what's called a "lodestar analysis," related to quantum meruit ("the amount one deserves"), that is, the amount a reasonable attorney would charge. This usually requires actually itemizing the billing so the court can analyze whether or not these actually are reasonable fees. Sometimes something so nonsensical as actually to constitute a "fake bill" does get past a judge, but the usual signs of such billing are block billing that doesn't really identify what the fees were for, with some vague designation like "legal research," inflated fees either outside the realm of what is normally charged in the area, or rates that are clearly inflated for the level of skill of the attorney.
The billing for Mosquito Boy's work in Vic's case would be a perfect example, and claiming to be a total expert on TCPA while billing as many hours for research as Sam Johnson, who never purported to be an expert, would be an example of a nonsensical bill. This was the one thing Chupp got half right and so of course is the one thing the dipshit appeals panel remanded.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
I remember when Monty came on Nick’s radar. As has been mentioned, Jim (Metokur) discovered Monty and his other legal shenanigans and was clowning him mercilessly. Monty immediately started threatening to sue him and at first Jim laughed at and basically taunted him. “Yeah I’m sooo scared lol” (not a quote but the gist of it all). Then one day Jim abruptly stopped all Monty talk and never referred to him again as far as I can recall. It was disappointing as someone who’d been enjoying the daily insanity/hilarity.
At some point before he dropped the topic like a hot potato, Jim and Nick dissected Monty’s legal shit on stream together. I don’t even remember the details but Jim STFU as soon as Monty made clear he was very willing to go legal against him. Nick, of course, responded by calling Monty a pedo who sucks kids off.
I’m not sure Nick was drunk when he made these comments but it doesn’t even matter. Every poor choice Nick makes — and they are plenty — is influenced by the pride he takes in his identity as a liquor-loving rabble rouser. If he hadn’t killed so many brain cells, he’d pay Monty the $50k and check his stupid ass into rehab. His kids deserve a father who’s not on track to be the good hygiene version of Ethan Ralph.
At some point before he dropped the topic like a hot potato, Jim and Nick dissected Monty’s legal shit on stream together. I don’t even remember the details but Jim STFU as soon as Monty made clear he was very willing to go legal against him. Nick, of course, responded by calling Monty a pedo who sucks kids off.
I’m not sure Nick was drunk when he made these comments but it doesn’t even matter. Every poor choice Nick makes — and they are plenty — is influenced by the pride he takes in his identity as a liquor-loving rabble rouser. If he hadn’t killed so many brain cells, he’d pay Monty the $50k and check his stupid ass into rehab. His kids deserve a father who’s not on track to be the good hygiene version of Ethan Ralph.
You’d think, right? Meet Paul Weimer.
Twitter Is Cancer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Glad to see Nick needs the GriftSendGo money so badly that he went out and got LAWPOPE vanity plates.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
Coompope was already taken?
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
He should have just gotten BALLDO plates.
I don't necessarily agree with the "run away like a pussy" approach Jim took, but it's definitely smarter than Nick's choice. "Oh this guy wants to sue me? Here's my head on a platter! This dude sucks little boys' dicks!" <---- HEY MONTY HERE'S YOUR DEFAMATION PER SE
At the very least if someone is getting ready to go legal on you, perhaps you should at least moderate your tone.
I guess what I'm saying is Nick is a dumbass. As much of a piece of shit as Monty is, so far as I know, he does not actually suck little boys' dicks. That may be the best thing I can say about him, but what Nick said is about the dumbest thing anyone could have said in his situation.
I know I usually throw in the "this is not legal advice" shit, but this is actually real legal advice for a change: do not accuse some litigious motherfucker of sucking little boys' dicks. It's a bad idea. It rarely ends well. Especially if they don't.
Nick very well may be in a trajectory where he is going to be completely owned by a gigantic lolcow. This is all his own fault.
Also I'll note that the vile slurs he's being sued over by Monty are eerily similar to exactly the kind of bullshit Vic sued over. Contemplate that in this little morality play.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
What an insufferable faggot.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Nick got drunk and thought he would never see a serious lawsuit because the first one Monty filed was self represented garbage. Now he's paying the price. The thing I'm interested in seeing is whether he starts musing about replacing Randazza with cheaper representation if the judge doesn't dismiss the case. Rekieta is rich, but not rich enough that he can pay Randazza his full rates as the case goes through discovery and on to trial without feeling it.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Hell, Randazza might have even given him a slight discount for the interest in the case, but no, Drunkieta got drunk and called his business partner a faggot, so he's probably paying an asshole tax for that, too.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
Not to mention that the failed gofundme further reinforces that Nick should not be getting the "friends and family" rate from Randazza for his popularity. However, given the size of the bill compared to the quantity of work, I'm not sure he's getting much of a discount.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
In 2022, months before Rekieta got sued, Randazza was still bristling at being linked to Nick and bringing up this incident as justification. I don't see Nick getting any sort of discount.
I think the GiveSendGo means that Nick got scared that the case might move forward to discovery, and he didn't want to pay Randazza's rates for that process himself. Now that the crowdfunding totally fizzled, I wouldn't be surprised if he was considering ways to save money while also saving face.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2019
"I would like to once again tell my audience about the story I am reporting on of Monty being a devious little fucking cretin. I just got an update that Montegraph "the man that fucks melons" is still being a devious little cunt. Check out his thread on the kiwifarms if you want to know more. I believe my sources in what they say about Monty and what he likes to suck and fuck. it has been said that he belongs with the same group as keffels and NAMBLA"
He could have had every ounce of spice and then some in his statement. He could have built in layers of legal defenses in his statement. He should have known to do it. Instead he did his drunken balldo defamation, while screaming sue me.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
Per https://www.mncourts.gov/Find-Courts/Kandiyohi.aspx:
https://archive.is/k1l8z
Above cropped from the schedule linked on that page.
Today at 2pm CDT. Think someone posted zoom info in this thread or the rackets thread, but not sure if that was accurate or supposed to be public.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2015
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
It's not a federal holiday, but it is a holiday in some states/local jurisdictions.