💀 Horrorcow Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta / "u/Early-Leopard-8351" - Polysubstance abuser, child doser, dog killer. "Lawtube pope" turned zesty Dabbleverse Redditor streamer. Swinger "whitebread ass nigga" who snuffs animals and visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold. Still not over his ex Aaron. Wife's bod worth $50.

[Strix454]

Rekieta taunted a few times on his show to sue him. Would adding that mean anything/affect their case at all?
At the very least it'll show Rekieta meant what he said to be factual and was confident enough to go to court over it.

Edit:
His main defense seems to be he's always joking on his show. But he's also a lawyer and should know better.

The main defenses he has offered so far in the court filings are:
1) Monty is a public figure. The standard for public figures would require malice on the part of Nick. Nick says he has no malice because he was discussing something others had discussed previously.
2) That the law of colorado should apply. That based on the law of colorado applying, Nick calling him a pedo was Nick speaking on a matter of public concern.

Nick will often say other things on his show. But what his attorney argues in the court filings is generally what counts.

Both defenses could be accepted or rejected by a particular judge. Nick doesn't have a perfect defense on either point: But Monty's side didn't make perfect arguments on these points either. It could go either way.

If he looses, he'll have to pay up, but if he wins does that mean anyone can call him names as long as its in jest?

I think in any case involving Nick as the plaintiff, Nick would clearly be a public figure.

You would have to call a public figure names with actual malice (knowing that what you said was false and not caring if it were false) to get in trouble. If you could suggest that the names being called were such a joke and that no reasonable person could take the names you called the public figure seriously, then you could call that public figure names.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

How dare they! INCEL PRUDES!

WHAT!? KiwiFarms was right again!? Imagine my shock...

It really is cow behaviour to disregard all the serious predictions that the Farms have made. As a whole, farmers have a pretty good track record if you discount the jokes and LARP predictions. I could name 6 predictions for Nose alone that have come true.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

The main defenses he has offered so far in the court filings are:
1) Monty is a public figure. The standard for public figures would require malice on the part of Nick. Nick says he has no malice because he was discussing something others had discussed previously.
2) That the law of colorado should apply. That based on the law of colorado applying, Nick calling him a pedo was Nick speaking on a matter of public concern.

Nick will often say other things on his show. But what his attorney argues in the court filings is generally what counts.

Both defenses could be accepted or rejected by a particular judge. Nick doesn't have a perfect defense on either point: But Monty's side didn't make perfect arguments on these points either. It could go either way.



I think in any case involving Nick as the plaintiff, Nick would clearly be a public figure.

You would have to call a public figure names with actual malice (knowing that what you said was false and not caring if it were false) to get in trouble. If you could suggest that the names being called were such a joke and that no reasonable person could take the names you called the public figure seriously, then you could call that public figure names.

WRT #1, I believe a finding of malice (or not) would be a fact question, rather than a question of law, so therefore appropriate for the jury to decide on, rather than the judge. The question of if Monty is a public figure though, would be a question for the judge, but I just don't know he is.

I get that Nick and his team are trying to weazel in an out of state anti-SLAPP (as in #2), in which case the judge would rule on the malice and public figure questions, but I just can't see that working. Unless the judge is really lazy and just wants this off her docket.

But yeah, Schneider's case was all over the place.

Edit: words in the last sentence.

 

[Swole McPole]

But yeah, Schneider's case was all over the place.

I see why Randazza gets the money he gets. He definitely made the very most from a very thin set of facts. Poor Schneider was way out of his depth, and Randazza was clearly in his element.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Rekieta both said it was opinion and that it was fact, and he has said over and over again he isn't joking. More recently he started with the "people think" ie he is trying to do the "some people think" / it's just opinion defense.

In Randazza's motion to dismiss, the evidence he presents that the key statements from October 13 were jokes is thin gruel indeed. The key points are that Nick had been drinking for nearly six hours (as if this is some kind of extenuating circumstance for him and not the core of his show at this point) and that two weeks later on October 28 he said he was joking about the "kid stuff", which sounds like cleanup.

From the actual context of the clip, Nick appears not so much to be joking so much as angry at someone he is claiming to be a person who hurts children.

As recently as two weeks ago Nick claimed Monty "admitted to everything I've said on camera".

I see why Randazza gets the money he gets. He definitely made the very most from a very thin set of facts. Poor Schneider was way out of his depth, and Randazza was clearly in his element.

Rekieta isn't just paying for Randazza. Nick's paying for the entire team around Randazza who is gathering the facts to provide to Randazza to build the case. Schneider is working by himself and maybe bouncing some ideas off his partner or his wife () . The difference in legal firepower is massive.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

In Randazza's motion to dismiss, the evidence he presents that the key statements from October 13 were jokes is thin gruel indeed. The key points are that Nick had been drinking for nearly six hours (as if this is some kind of extenuating circumstance for him and not the core of his show at this point) and that two weeks later on October 28 he said he was joking about the "kid stuff", which sounds like cleanup.

From the actual context of the clip, Nick appears not so much to be joking so much as angry at someone he is claiming to be a person who hurts children.

As recently as two weeks ago Nick claimed Monty "admitted to everything I've said on camera".


Rekieta isn't just paying for Randazza. Nick's paying for the entire team around Randazza who is gathering the facts to provide to Randazza to build the case. Schneider is working by himself and maybe bouncing some ideas off his partner or his wife () . The difference in legal firepower is massive.

If he loses, it will all be due to a 'dumb judge that doesn't understand the law'. Nick cannot take an L, and there are fewer supporters willing to put money up for him

 

[Strix454]

I see why Randazza gets the money he gets. He definitely made the very most from a very thin set of facts. Poor Schneider was way out of his depth, and Randazza was clearly in his element.

He was verbally very good yesterday and he is going to be formidable in front of any potential jury. But the judge wasn't into any of it yesterday. I think Randazza was really disappointed that she asked him no questions. I'm sure he had an entire performance prepared.

 

[Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown]

It would be so funny if Legal Bytes and Hoeg did a Lawtube special tearing apart Rekieta's defence, cashing in and make her comeback.

Richard Hoeg hadn't crossed my mind at all since he had his stroke a few months back.

Checking his Twitter to see if he's recovered and back on his feet, I noticed that the totally secure lawyer and YTuber includes 110k+ subscribers!!! casually in his Twitter bio.

Quickly scrolling his Twitter, it looks like he's recovered enough to appear as a guest on podcasts and tweet about video games.

https://twitter.com/HoegLaw

 

[AnOminous]

What does this mean? I do not know, but let me know what you think of this face?

I'm not sure but he probably should have had a part in this video:

Rekieta taunted a few times on his show to sue him. Would adding that mean anything/affect their case at all?
At the very least it'll show Rekieta meant what he said to be factual and was confident enough to go to court over it.

There really isn't a magic formula but if there's any real fact question as to whether it was a factual claim or just bloviating nonsense from a drunken moron, it goes to a trial. E.g., again, the Musk "pedo guy" trial. It made it to trial but the jury decided there were no damages. Since a jury is kind of a black box, we don't know exactly why, but presumably it was that nobody thought the cave guy was actually a "pedo guy" just on Musk's say-so.

I didn't either, I just thought Musk was a giant douche for saying something that lame because his gay little submarine was of no use and people were too busy saving lives to fellate his ego.

 

[Swole McPole]

He was verbally very good yesterday and he is going to be formidable in front of any potential jury. But the judge wasn't into any of it yesterday.

That was my take as well. The judge didn't have an awful lot to say, but my sense was that she didn't seem to buying what he was selling. My guess is that she's Googled him, so she knows who he is, and I think the whole 'two girls, one cup' thing was his biggest misstep. It didn't have any relevance to the case, so I bet she thought she was being trolled -- made some kind of legal meme she didn't quite understand, but strongly suspected was profoundly inappropriate.

I don't think he did enough to get a summary judgement, but if you'd stumped up the money because you wanted a fight, you'd feel like you were in good hands.

 

[Kosher Dill]

I think Randazza was really disappointed that she asked him no questions. I'm sure he had an entire performance prepared.

I'm sure he cried all the way to the bank.

 

[Maude Snew]

Nick cannot take an L

Maybe not yet, he'll get there eventually though. He looks like he can take the D just fine.

 

[Chibitzen]

This poor judge having to sit through 2 internet retards slap fighting, talking about 2 girls 1 cup and Monty's weird video's. Frankly they should both have to pay the judge just for bringing it this far.

The frivolous internet lawyer begged for a frivolous lawsuit. So this is about right.

Anyone looking for Still-Life insanity, apparently Locals has started intervening and just deleting anything he or anyone else posts that they think is against their rules, assuming they have rules.
Rekieta should definitely attack Locals over that. They're not his dad!

How would you know that it's Locals and not Nick or one of his "mods"?

 

[Twitter Is Cancer]

The frivolous internet lawyer begged for a frivolous lawsuit. So this is about right.

How would you know that it's Locals and not Nick or one of his "mods"?

Because one of the Locals grannies got a message about it after she concern trolled out and contacted Locals. She told me on facebook that Locals told her they were deleting reported posts. Rekieta's Locals isn't a coherent group of losers, there are factions.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

He was verbally very good yesterday and he is going to be formidable in front of any potential jury. But the judge wasn't into any of it yesterday. I think Randazza was really disappointed that she asked him no questions. I'm sure he had an entire performance prepared.

I'm not so sure. My impression from oral arguments yesterday only emphasized my impression of Randazza as a lawyer's lawyer. He's clearly very comfortable and skilled in arguments to the judge but unless he has an entirely different persona to switch to I don't think his flourishes would play that well in front of a rural jury in Willmar.

I think it's an academic question though because I think Rekieta will tap out of paying Randazza Legal Group rates long before any potential trial starts.

Rekieta's Locals isn't a coherent group of losers, there are factions.

That's become very, very clear since the start of the year.

 

[Twitter Is Cancer]

This is what peak performance looks like.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Because one of the Locals grannies got a message about it after she concern trolled out and contacted Locals. She told me on facebook that Locals told her they were deleting reported posts. Rekieta's Locals isn't a coherent group of losers, there are factions.

Post receipts, newfag.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not so sure. My impression from oral arguments yesterday only emphasized my impression of Randazza as a lawyer's lawyer. He's clearly very comfortable and skilled in arguments to the judge but unless he has an entirely different persona to switch to I don't think his flourishes would play that well in front of a rural jury in Willmar.

I really adore Randazza's fonts. They are just snazzy as shit.

 

[Whistlin' Crustacean]

From "contact me via Craigslist and I'll see upon my sacred word of honour if I can redact yo shit" to this.

Looking through the Ty Beard stream log, and I just have to say that if anyone here is the one trolling the LOCALS chat with my Panotptes logs, you are a colossal FAGGOT. Look and laugh. DON'T TOUCH!

Character development, ladies and guntlemen.

Elissa Clips put up the audio for the Montagraph court hearing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n09NtuKAD9Y

For the archive:

View attachment 5027623

Gee, Randazza's got a silver tongue. The first 14 minutes of the clip are legitimately pleasant/funny to listen to. "Not a watermelon, but a honeydew" indeed.

Schneider, by contrast, isn't any of those things. The audio stopped being engaging or, dare I be so bold, entertaining 3 minutes after that dude opened his face. "My client is upset!" — take a number. "Mr. Rekieta threatens to rape Mr. Quest. *chuckle* He also threatens to rape me! Perhaps, Mr. Rekieta is following a script written by Alex Jones!" — fucking kill yourself, you drama queen.

As much as Nicky's beclowned himself over this past almost a year, trying to invoke Alex Jones in a trial makes Schneider into a faggot of such colossal proportions, the scales tip decisively in Rekieta's favor. I welcome your rainbows.

 

[Swole McPole]

As much as Nicky's beclowned himself over this past almost a year, trying to invoke Alex Jones in a trial makes Schneider into a faggot of such colossal proportions, the scales tip decisively in Rekieta's favor. I welcome your rainbows.

This just makes me root for Schneider though. He's so obviously outgunned and outclassed in every possible sense, it's like a David vs Goliath battle. Nick is the more charismatic and personable client, by far. Randazza is a much more skilled and successful lawyer. In a sane world, Schneider would never have taken the case, and as soon as Nick indicated his unwillingness to settle, he'd have packed up Monty's bags and sent him home.

And yet here we are. For all Monty and Schneider's failings, it's really hard for me to not want to root for the underdog. And in my imagination, the whole thing plays out like some James Stewart/Henry Fonda legal drama from the 1940s, in which the slick firm of big city lawyers storms into town to take on some hayseed lawyer in front of a jury of hicks.

And we all know how those movies played out.