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

[Kosher Salt]

@Strix454 you seem to have the best command of the facts. How wide was the release of the film in question? I think that's going to matter for what we're discussing. The level of release the film got before it was pulled will essentially be somewhere from "major theatrical release" to "posted on Monty's website for a week and five people saw it", and at some point I don't think you can unring the bell and demand nobody make fun of you for your private copyright that you previously publicly broadcast to everyone. Like I know it wasn't popular, but that doesn't mean he didn't try and make it that way.

As far as I'm concerned, released it & ONE person saw it is enough.

From what I can gather, the main controversy over the video was that some conspiracy theorists in the mid-2010s believed that the video contained a checkerboard pattern or something which was a winking reference to the Ramsey murder case in Colorado, suggestive of Monty's involvement in the crime, which is both insane and not something Rekieta brought up.

Is it insane though? I thought that Monty specifically intended for the checkerboard pattern to be a nod to the murder case. Now maybe jumping from "he's an insane filmographer" to "he's the murderer" is a bit insane, but it's not that crazy.

I don't think Monty should be considered a limited-purpose public figure - by the definition a lot of people are using, every struggling filmmaker in LA who releases a short on YouTube is a public figure

He absolutely is, and absolutely should be, a limited-purpose public figure. That doesn't mean you can defame him generally - he's not a general-purpose public figure - but you absolutely have a right to talk about the stuff that he himself put out there.

 

[Owlbear]

For research purposes, did anyone make out the name of the local Minnesota counsel that waived Randazza in?

That was Mr. Kezhaya, the satanic temple's lawyer. He has been local counsel for Nick the whole time.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Imagine a supercut of Rekieta's worst moments played for the jury.

Even worse, the jury pool could think that Monty was getting railroaded by a degenerate balldo-wielder who makes money from a "librul" career: YouTube influencer. That's one step from being a TikTok star, which makes him a Chinese sympathizer going after our kids. That would be a problem for Nick. Also the fact that getting to trial will cost $500k on Randazza.

That's what we would call "more prejudicial than probative," but I can easily see Balldo-man unintentionally opening the door in his attempts to argue that the statement would have been understood by his audience as opinion rather than a statement of fact.

 

[feral cat #6385]

That's what we would call "more prejudicial than probative," but I can easily see Balldo-man unintentionally opening the door in his attempts to argue that the statement would have been understood by his audience as opinion rather than a statement of fact.

That determination would be up to the judge. Did you see the Murdaugh case?

 

[Thomas Talus]

That determination would be up to the judge.

Questions of admissibility generally are.

Did you see the Murdaugh case?

Nope, I'm only a casual lolsuit follower.

 

[feral cat #6385]

Questions of admissibility generally are.

Nope, I'm only a casual lolsuit follower.

That judge let all sorts of financial crime bullshit in. For a murder trial. Financial crimes completely unrelated to the murders. Seeing how some of these clown judges run their courtrooms is disturbing.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

That's what we would call "more prejudicial than probative," but I can easily see Balldo-man unintentionally opening the door in his attempts to argue that the statement would have been understood by his audience as opinion rather than a statement of fact.

Randazza's oral argument made pretty clear that a big part of their defense is that Nick is a "legal comedian", presumably to indicate that his audience wouldn't take what he's saying literally. I don't see this case getting to trial without both sides trying to characterize the show. The problem for Nick is Schneider's complaint is accurate - there's no visible indication he's joking in some of the clips Randazza now claims are jokes - so they're going to have to make the case that based on the broader context of the show itself nobody would take it as anything other than a joke.

 

[Thomas Talus]

That judge let all sorts of financial crime bullshit in. For a murder trial. Financial crimes completely unrelated to the murders.

Crimes of dishonesty can be admissible if they go to credibility of the witness, so I can see that. They wouldn't be admissible for purposes of showing conformity therewith. I think I recall him getting up on the stand, which opens the door.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Randazza's oral argument made pretty clear that a big part of their defense is that Nick is a "legal comedian", presumably to indicate that his audience wouldn't take what he's saying literally. I don't see this case getting to trial without both sides trying to characterize the show. The problem for Nick is Schneider's complaint is accurate - there's no visible indication he's joking in some of the clips Randazza now claims are jokes - so they're going to have to make the case that based on the broader context of the show itself nobody would take it as anything other than a joke.

Ah yes... The 'Maddow Defence' which Nick and others mocked relentlessly until it was convenient to use it themselves...

 

[John Andrews Stan]

The full quotation is even more damning. Nick knew what he was saying could get him sued, he knew that Monty was not hesitant to sue those accusing him of crimes, and he dared Monty to come after him legally.

It’s called fucking around and finding out.

If Nick’s ego wasn’t out of control he’d have settled years ago and this wouldn’t even be a topic of conversation. Now he’s racked up months of Randazza-level legal fees with no real progress and shit’s just getting started.

You’d need a heart of stone not to lol.

 

[Strix454]

The full quotation is even more damning. Nick knew what he was saying could get him sued, he knew that Monty was not hesitant to sue those accusing him of crimes, and he dared Monty to come after him legally.

Then you add on the streams he did with Jim in 2019 where he went deep into all the specific legal details, facts and filings in a case where someone else had called Monty a pedo. Those streams make it very difficult for him to claim that he was just repeating what others said out of his own ignorance.
He has also said things about having factual evidence of monty being a pedo which make things even worse. I think he actually said at one point that the FBI had called monty a pedo. Really dangerous stuff because if he doesn't have something factual to base that on, that reaches the malice standard (IMO).

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Then you add on the streams he did with Jim in 2019 where he went deep into all the specific legal details, facts and filings in a case where someone else had called Monty a pedo. Those streams make it very difficult for him to claim that he was just repeating what others said out of his own ignorance.
He has also said things about having factual evidence of monty being a pedo which make things even worse. I think he actually said at one point that the FBI had called monty a pedo. Really dangerous stuff because if he doesn't have something factual to base that on, that reaches the malice standard (IMO).

Imagine making Ralph-tier life choices and still insisting that your drinking doesn’t affect your life negatively.

 

[Twitter Is Cancer]

Imagine making Ralph-tier life choices and still insisting that your drinking doesn’t affect your life negatively.

he married his bug-eyed junkie slut before his drinking problem. He's always been a spineless dweeb who makes bad decisions.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

bug-eyed junkie slut

There’s a non-zero chance that that’s what she prefers to be called.

 

[AnOminous]

It also seems like Randazza's oral argument was mainly focused less on legal issues and more on restating the facts of the case, namely that it is a trashfire with both parties being total trainwrecks.

I find it highly amusing that Nick is probably going to be dropping $100K+ on this, even if it gets dismissed or thrown out on an s.j., and has to sit there listen to Randazza talking shit on him while being paid by him.

That's what we would call "more prejudicial than probative," but I can easily see Balldo-man unintentionally opening the door in his attempts to argue that the statement would have been understood by his audience as opinion rather than a statement of fact.

Nick may need to introduce that stuff himself to establish the kind of drunken clownshoes act he really has going on these days.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

So when it's all said and done how many Balldo's will Nick have to sell to pay this guy back? Can we call it the Balldo Quest?

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Nick may need to introduce that stuff himself to establish the kind of drunken clownshoes act he really has going on these days.

I don't see how this case goes to trial without an avalanche of video footage introduced as evidence where Randazza enters in a ton of video to argue "Look! This shows that Rekieta is a harmless drunk idiot!" and Schneider enters in a ton of video to argue "Look! This proves that Rekieta is a malicious drunk idiot!"

 

[waffle]

I don't see how this case goes to trial without an avalanche of video footage introduced as evidence where Randazza enters in a ton of video to argue "Look! This shows that Rekieta is a harmless drunk idiot!" and Schneider enters in a ton of video to argue "Look! This proves that Rekieta is a malicious drunk idiot!"

The trial is going to be an absolute clown show if it happens. Like potentially "worth making the drive for" level. I expect several days thst are mostly videos being played for the jury, and for Nick to act like a salty bitch the whole time. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Metokur gets subpoenaed to talk about the live stream and what his impression at the time was. He's in instate witness who's been fully doxed, it would be relatively trivial to make him appear. Lol

 

[John Andrews Stan]

The trial is going to be an absolute clown show if it happens.

I rated optimistic because I dare not dream of such thunderous milk flow. But Nick is just enough of a wet brain egotistical drunk not to settle this shit before it goes to trial. Like he should have done months (and tens of thousands in Randazza retainers) ago.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

The trial is going to be an absolute clown show if it happens. Like potentially "worth making the drive for" level. I expect several days thst are mostly videos being played for the jury, and for Nick to act like a salty bitch the whole time. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Metokur gets subpoenaed to talk about the live stream and what his impression at the time was. He's in instate witness who's been fully doxed, it would be relatively trivial to make him appear. Lol

I would *laugh* so hard if Metokur face dox comes through subpoena because of a Montegraph v Rackets lawsuit. I think I wistfully hoped for this in the Rackets thread.