waffle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
I apparently hallucinated it being a State holiday because I didn't have any court.
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 28, 2014
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
Youtube streaming. Not ever. Not once. Don't let your kids grow up to be this guy.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be soyboys.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Unfortunately I didn't have a chance to join in the Zoom hearing, but here's a summary from a Twitter user (plus a response from Randazza).
Doesn't seem to have been that eventful.
From what I gather from the social media chatter, the judge did not appear to be all that engaged in the hearing. She didn't allow Randazza a rebuttal after Schneider was finished and had no questions for either side, which gives rise to the impression she may have already largely made up her mind one way or another.
Twitter | Archive
Doesn't seem to have been that eventful.
From what I gather from the social media chatter, the judge did not appear to be all that engaged in the hearing. She didn't allow Randazza a rebuttal after Schneider was finished and had no questions for either side, which gives rise to the impression she may have already largely made up her mind one way or another.
Twitter | Archive
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
>open sexual deviant
>cucked by black men
>unable to shut the fuck up
>history of making violent threats
>buys a new car during a lawsuit
>expensive overpriced lawyer
All Nick has to do is start beating Lady Rackets with the remote to complete his transformation into Ron Toye. Wonder how many times he'll say "I don't recall" in his deposition?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
For what it's worth, I generally view Dunford as trying to be honest and having at least a solid academic background in law. I don't think he's deliberately misrepresenting anything and if it's as he said, it's definitely slightly leaning in Randazza's direction, although any remotely competent judge isn't directly going to telegraph an opinion.
I think there's a reasonably good argument Nick's comment was so outrageous and over the top nobody reasonable would have taken it as a statement of fact, but I'm no mind-reader.
We've definitely seen cases like this go to trial, though, e.g. the Elon Musk "pedo guy" trial. He won, but he also spent money that would cause some serious anal anguish to a guy on Nick's level of wigger rich.
- Joined
- May 29, 2021
The judge seemed to show no particular interest in any of it. Both sides got to have their say and that was about it. To me, that points to some sort of rather definitive narrow decision which the judge doesn't expect to be complex. Either a summary judgement on something like (for example) public figure or rejecting the summary judgement based on it being too early.
Nothing at all was given away by the judge and it seems like it could go either way (IMO).
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
Odds on Nick streaming about how he TOTALLY REKT Monty tonight?
I expect something this month on the ruling if the Tuba lawyer is to believed. Examining my personal feelings, I really am indifferent either way on the ruling. I do not wish Nick ill actively, but I am no invested in his winning. If he wins, I am sure Melon Man will do something entertaining. Nose will crow like he knew he would win all a long and probably say something stupid. If it goes to trial, then it will be open season on meme law. The salt would be glorious. Twitter. LOCALS. Comment sections would be on fire!
I would normally lean toward the outcome that is the best for humour, but Montegraph is just so disgustingly unlikeable that I cannot break the 50-50 deadlock.
Nick, you and Monty deserve each other.
I expect something this month on the ruling if the Tuba lawyer is to believed. Examining my personal feelings, I really am indifferent either way on the ruling. I do not wish Nick ill actively, but I am no invested in his winning. If he wins, I am sure Melon Man will do something entertaining. Nose will crow like he knew he would win all a long and probably say something stupid. If it goes to trial, then it will be open season on meme law. The salt would be glorious. Twitter. LOCALS. Comment sections would be on fire!
I would normally lean toward the outcome that is the best for humour, but Montegraph is just so disgustingly unlikeable that I cannot break the 50-50 deadlock.
Nick, you and Monty deserve each other.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
Elissa Clips had posted a clip of the hearing but the cowardly bitch pulled it down for some reason. But not before I downloaded it.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
I hope this goes to discovery and, if Nick is dumb enough, to trial. I don't find the public figure arguments compelling, and the cross-state anti-slapp arguments to be specious. Hence, bring on discovery.
I don't want Monty to win, but I do want Rekieta to suffer, as he refuses to swallow his pride and settle.
Edit: I would especially live to see discovery on all those Rekieta trusts, especially the Nevada ones his mom set up, and any similar ones elsewhere. Let's remove the bullshit and see how privileged the nose really is. And while I'm pretending, they should compel metokur to testify.
I don't want Monty to win, but I do want Rekieta to suffer, as he refuses to swallow his pride and settle.
Edit: I would especially live to see discovery on all those Rekieta trusts, especially the Nevada ones his mom set up, and any similar ones elsewhere. Let's remove the bullshit and see how privileged the nose really is. And while I'm pretending, they should compel metokur to testify.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
it's still up, though?
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
When I tried to refresh I kept getting this video is private. No idea what she was doing to it.
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
So the argument from Melon's side seems to be:
'SLAPP BAD in MN! So we need to get to a jury--or at least discovery. We will know more then, then you can make the BEST decision'
Also 'There are videos that claimed to be made by one person, but are not. TRUST ME!' What is this?
Is this really convincing? Unless the shocking nature of the Nose statements make the judge curious, I do not see much of a strong argument, but I am not a barrister...
waffle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
I am like thirty seconds into this video and I already hate the Judge's mixture of "mommy voice" and "Xanax cadence".
Best argument to me seems to be that there was no reason to take Nick seriously and that Monty is pretty close to defamation proof because he has put out so much fucked up public content about him self.
Monty probably isn't/shouldn't be a public figure, but Nick still can bring up his good faith belief in/fair report of things others have said to show that he was operating in good faith.
Monty's lawyer seems to kind of admit that he filed this case prematurely and should have waited until he had the necessary medical records to make his claims... I presume there was a statute of limitations issue or something.
Best argument to me seems to be that there was no reason to take Nick seriously and that Monty is pretty close to defamation proof because he has put out so much fucked up public content about him self.
Monty probably isn't/shouldn't be a public figure, but Nick still can bring up his good faith belief in/fair report of things others have said to show that he was operating in good faith.
Monty's lawyer seems to kind of admit that he filed this case prematurely and should have waited until he had the necessary medical records to make his claims... I presume there was a statute of limitations issue or something.
- Joined
- May 29, 2021
The strength of the case is that under minnesota legal precedent, calling someone a pedo is defamation per se. That means that the statement is defamatory and damaging on its face. This shifts the burden of proof in the case considerably.
Nick's side really doesn't present a good argument on that point.
There are no anti-SLAPP laws in minnesota. The courts of minnesota found the state's own anti-slapp law unconstitutional. Nick's argument is that in spite of this the anti-SLAPP laws of an entirely different state and legal jurisdiction should be applied to the case.
The problem with this is that even were the judge to import the anti-SLAPP laws of another state into the case, that itself does not necessarily mean that there will be an anti-SLAPP judgement in the case. The anti-SLAPP judgement depends on a different set of questions.
Nick's argument is that when he was calling Monty a pedo, he was in reality discussing a controversial issue of public importance with regard to a famous person.
The burden of proof in the summary judgement motion is mostly on Nick's side. His side has to provide a compelling argument that there is no valid case for defamation in this matter to a point where no further litigation or discovery could have any possibility of changing anything.
To prevail, Nick's side (IMO) has to:
1) Prove both that Colorado law should be applied in this case AND prove that Nick was without any question addressing a matter of obvious public interest by calling Monty a pedo.
AND/OR
2) Prove unquestionably that Monty is a well-known public figure (a famous person) and that Nick's comments on their face were made totally without Nick intending any Malice. That Nick so obviously did not intend any malice that no further examination of anything in the case is necessary.
3) Have the judge come up with a different argument for dismissing the case that I can't really see at this point.
The burden of proof on Monty's side is to an extent that they have valid case to make and that taking the case to discovery has the potential to uncover more matters of fact. It tends to be a lower burden on their side because the courts tend often to give the benefit of the doubt to a plantiff's case. But not always.
No. There is no statute of limitations issue. Alot of times in defamation cases the actual damages are vaguely specified in the early complaint and elaborated on as the case goes on. Its often up to individual judges what they will accept or tolerate on that sort of thing.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
I tend to agree.
I would have imagined that if the judge was leaning towards applying the CO anti-SLAPP, which would be quite complex for various reasons, some unique to this case, she would have prodded at least one of the side(s) about it. At the very least asking Schneider more about their position on Monty's weird residency situation. The fact that she didn't makes me think the most likely outcomes are the two you put forward.
My takeaway is unless the judge applies Colorado law, the very real risk for Nick is whether the judge might let the case go to discovery and tell Randazza to try again afterwards after both sides have had the chance to find whatever evidence they need. The one part of Schneider's argument which I thought was savvy was that he focused very narrowly on the need for discovery. There's a lot of noise in this case, even in basic facts like "where does the plaintiff live?" that are required to dismiss the case like Rekieta is asking for.
I think the argument was meant to be a lot of the things attributed to Monty were actually not done by Monty, and discovery is required to sort out the competing claims and evidence.
The reality is that Schneider left a lot on the table. He did pick up on Rekieta's recent rant where Nick screamed in graphic terms about raping him in court (which to be fair to Nick, was clearly meant figuratively rather than as a "threat" as it was characterized). He left behind Nick stating that Monty "admitted to everything I've said on camera", which I'm pretty sure was said just a couple minutes later in the same stream. And that's after Randazza argued that Nick's commentary should be considered comedy. I guess that statement is also supposed to be a joke?
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
What would this accomplish? Monty is at least a limited purpose public figure - he's "internet famous" to the point where Nick only learned of him because of his notoriety. If Nick's opinion of Monty was based on things attributed to Monty that were actually not done by Monty (says Monty), that's not actual malice - actual malice would've required Nick entertaining serious doubts about the accuracy of his opinion. If Nick's opinion was based on things that he thought he knew, he wasn't entertaining serious doubts. It doesn't matter if the things were false (says Monty), the only thing that matters is Nick didn't make them up, he heard them from other people.
If Monty's in any sense a public figure it's basically impossible for him to sue Nick for false statements that Nick heard from other people and had no serious reason to doubt when he was repeating them.
He's trying to get around this by bringing up a whole bunch of things Nick said that weren't just repetitions of what everyone else said - I'm not sure if anyone else had said "Monty likes to suck little boy's cocks", for example - but to what extent does he think that discovery is going to help him demonstrate truth or falsity to that statement?
- Joined
- May 29, 2021
Monty made and released his film series in 2010. He then pulled it back from the internet and aside from stills, it became difficult if not impossible to see for many years. Aside from stills. A seemingly crazy person did a review in 2016. But there is no way to know if that person actually saw the film.
Multiple edited versions of the "film" have appeared on the internet starting in 2019. But none of them as far as anyone knows came from Monty. The unavailability of the film since 2010 in any official form could perhaps be used to build an argument in terms of a lack of public controversy around the film.
The discovery question would be which film Nick saw, how did he obtain the film, when did he see it and so on.
I don't think there is much legally useful in any of that for Monty though.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
aka Don't Put Your Soyboy on the Stream, Mrs Worthington.
Don't put your soyboy on the stream, Mr. Rekieta
Don't put your soyboy on the stream
The market is overcrowded
The trolling is pretty tough
Despite inevitable sift, the desire to grift
That isn't quite enough
He's a nice boy and though his penis doesn't work
He isn't the type, regardless of hype, he's just too big a jerk
I repeat, Mr. Rekieta, rich Mr. Rekieta
Don't put your soyboy on the stream.
Regarding yours, dear Mr. Rekieta
Of Wednesday, the 23rd.
Although your son may be keen on a YouTube career
Despite his being queer, can I make it clear that this is not a good idea
For him to hope and appear, Mr. Rekieta
Is on the face of it absurd
His testicles are not in reality, quite big enough, inviting enough
For this particular sphere
Don't put the Balldo on your son, Mr. Rekieta
Don't put the Balldo on your son,
He's suffering erectile function you must honestly confess
But stopping the drink and sniffing the pink could improve
His chances of his success
It's - it's a large nose, a symbol of our jewish past
But even so a GiveSendGo will bite him on the ass
On my knees, Mr. Rekieta, please Mr. Rekieta
Don't put your soyboy on the stream
Don't put your soyboy on the stream, Mr. Rekieta
Don't put your soyboy on the stream
Though they said at old William Mitchell
He was terrible at law
So like a hot brick, he dropped it quick and started dancing pole
He has a nice ass, to give the wretched boy his due
But his close friend Drex left the damn thing wrecked and now he can't hold his poo
No more buts, Mr. Rekieta, nuts! Mr. Rekieta
Don't put your soyboy on the stream
Last edited: