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

[Confetti Meringue]

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

The best way for Nick's lawyer to establish that Nick is a legal comedian is to publish the clip of Faran Balanced falling over and exposing herself.

Come on, Nick. You know that no one could possibly take a show with incidents like that seriously. It's the only way!

 

[Rotollo 2]

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

James Patrick O'shaunacy getting dragged in with his iron love life support

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

I'm thinking about Spectre acting almost like a badly written fanfiction tier self-insert into this case, and then I suddenly realized this.
What if Spectre never contacted Monty or his attorney, and just went straight to Nick with a tall tale to which Randazza (Impartial and not coombrained) went "Get that ass banned out here".
It certainly fit the trend for Spectre. Would that mean that Nick's ethics complaint would be in bad faith?

 

[Balldo's Gate]

I'm thinking about Spectre acting almost like a badly written fanfiction tier self-insert into this case, and then I suddenly realized this.
What if Spectre never contacted Monty or his attorney, and just went straight to Nick with a tall tale to which Randazza (Impartial and not coombrained) went "Get that ass banned out here".
It certainly fit the trend for Spectre. Would that mean that Nick's ethics complaint would be in bad faith?

I totally believe that Spectre would try to self-insert himself into the case by calling Schneider. He was positively giddy at the prospect of having a call with Randazza.

Do I trust him to relay the story 100% accurately? No.

What's interesting is that there's potentially two layers of spin. Spectre painted Schneider's opinion of Nick as unprofessional in general - I think there was something about not giving written responses to interrogatories or something else along those lines - and Nick's portrayal was that Schneider was just butthurt Nick came to his office in shorts.

I think the ethics complaint is just more hot air and I will treat it as such until it's filed. Nick was also adamant he was going to file a motion for sanctions to force Schneider to personally pay a portion of Nick's legal bills. No such motion has been filed yet.

 

[Strix454]

What if Spectre never contacted Monty or his attorney, and just went straight to Nick with a tall tale to which Randazza (Impartial and not coombrained) went "Get that ass banned out here".
It certainly fit the trend for Spectre. Would that mean that Nick's ethics complaint would be in bad faith?

Randazza would have told him to get out of there because the whole thing ethically smells bad. Your client brings in some guy he knows who has directly contacted the opposing attorney and asked him a whole lot of questions that potentially bear on the case. Its going to potentially look to others like someone or a group was trying to gather information in a totally inappropriate way legally.
If you brought Spectre's stories into an ethics complaint, I think the first thing the person looking at it is going to ask is "what the hell was this guy doing contacting that attorney and then sharing that information back to the plantiff? And why was the plantiff, who is an attorney, trying to share that information with his own attorney?"

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I'm thinking about Spectre acting almost like a badly written fanfiction tier self-insert into this case, and then I suddenly realized this.
What if Spectre never contacted Monty or his attorney, and just went straight to Nick with a tall tale to which Randazza (Impartial and not coombrained) went "Get that ass banned out here".
It certainly fit the trend for Spectre. Would that mean that Nick's ethics complaint would be in bad faith?

I totally believe that Spectre would try to self-insert himself into the case by calling Schneider. He was positively giddy at the prospect of having a call with Randazza.

Do I trust him to relay the story 100% accurately? No.

What's interesting is that there's potentially two layers of spin. Spectre painted Schneider's opinion of Nick as unprofessional in general - I think there was something about not giving written responses to interrogatories or something else along those lines - and Nick's portrayal was that Schneider was just butthurt Nick came to his office in shorts.

I think the ethics complaint is just more hot air and I will treat it as such until it's filed. Nick was also adamant he was going to file a motion for sanctions to force Schneider to personally pay a portion of Nick's legal bills. No such motion has been filed yet.

While Spectre is the avatar of the 'I have over 70 confirmed kills' copy pasta, ibdo not believe that he qouls fabricate a story out of whole cloth. Embellish, yes, but spinning a yarn from nothing is too risky.

Spectre wants good boy pats from Nick, and to be able to flex his legal acumen and proximity to Nick and Randazza. While not smart, he is cunning enough to know that lying outright is a bad idea.

Nick and his ethic complaint wouls not be 'bad faith' if he reasonably believed that Spectre was telling the truth, but basing the complaint on hearsay or Spectre's testimony seems pretty thin to me. I expect it to be one of those things Nick says to fire up his fans or to reinvigorate the show that never has any follow through...

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Randazza would have told him to get out of there because the whole thing ethically smells bad. Your client brings in some guy he knows who has directly contacted the opposing attorney and asked him a whole lot of questions that potentially bear on the case. Its going to potentially look to others like someone or a group was trying to gather information in a totally inappropriate way legally.
If you brought Spectre's stories into an ethics complaint, I think the first thing the person looking at it is going to ask is "what the hell was this guy doing contacting that attorney and then sharing that information back to the plantiff? And why was the plantiff, who is an attorney, trying to share that information with his own attorney?"

It smells bad not just ethically but practically. You have a guy who finds an excuse to contact an attorney representing someone in a legal action and at the very least sniff around the background of why he agreed to take the case. We don't know what other information, if anything, Spectre was digging for. It seems that then he went to the opposing party and revealed everything that was said. Then he got on the phone with opposing party's counsel, who appears to realize instantly that this was a massive fucking mistake and told Spectre and Nick to knock it the fuck off. Nick later used the term "one of my moderators" in apparent reference to Spectre, which although I personally believe Spectre to have been freelancing, could plausibly give rise to the perception that Spectre was acting as some sort of agent for Rekieta, even though he does it for free.

If this goes to discovery I would not be surprised in the slightest if there are subpoenas involving Spectre.

 

[Spaded Dave]

If this goes to discovery I would not be surprised in the slightest if there are subpoenas involving Spectre.

This would be Spectre's wet dream come true.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Elissa posted this, Monty's making the argument slander isn't free speech (correct), and when his argument is better than Nick's "lol just apply anti-SLAAP from another state in MN which finds anti-SLAAP unconstitutional".....
Crossposted from the Nick thread.

I will compress and upload local copy sometime next week, out traveling for work. Apparently someone on YT has a full copy of the now privated video.

Oh no... Rekieta bros I don't feel so good....

XskiXedgeX

oh no... did I just agree with Montagraph?

A wild Montagraph appears!

Montagraph	@elissa clips No, I Will Not Strike Your Video Down. I Am Sick And Tired Of Being Falsely Accused Of Heinous Crimes That I Never Committed Nor Ever Would Commit! People Are Constantly Pointing Out Petty Falsehoods Regarding Content That Never Existed, To Try And Frame Me As Something I Am Not. I Guess Poor People Are Not Allowed To Defend Themselves And Just Deal With The Constant Harassment.WRONG!! Substitute Your Name With Mine And See How It Feels To Be Me For A Day! I Don't Find Any Of This Funny.
@Cynthia Behave	Monty, I hope you'll allow Elissa to post more clips from your stream. You've got a growing group of people who aren't your fans (to put it mildly) but who understand your legal argument and support your position.
The Real Hydro PX	@megamonster1234 nick hopes to god that it doesn't go to discovery, he has even said he prays it doesn't go to Discovery.
Cynthia	@megamonster1234 Hey, y'know what's funny? Nick is AGAINST anti-SLAPP - he's had at least two rants on the matter. Funny, he's happy to try to use it now.

Hydro PX is part of the HATERS

The Real Hydro PX	I don't like monty, but for nick calling him pedo child molester with only evidence that he got from Rumors and his fans, he Deserves that Defamation lawsuit.
Wolvenar	I can't wait to come back here and ask you to explain how you come to your conclusions if this gets to trial.
Hydro Px	@wolvenar you notice there is a lot of clips that probably will be used for evidence of nick calling Monty a child molester, of nicks drunk unhinged ways losing his mind, using the HARD R and while the judge is figuring things out, he doubles down and says he still thinks monty is a pedo. he dropped the CM, cause he knows that was defamation you reap what you sow, but yet we dont see many of monty.
Wolvenar	@ The Real Hydro PX LOL ok I'm sure there will be. It will be fscking hilarious. Now imagine this. Monty win or lose is putting HIMSELF in a position where his worst public moments will be exposed. All laid out on display presented in the worst possible light. They will present a timeline where Monty came to Nick, attacked, antagonized, and borderline harassed Nick and his followers, over and over within Nicks public streams and various communities. I am not a lawyer, yet consider this, I could probably put together a very damning timeline and present a legal financial NIGHTMARE for Monty in court, even if I lost. If you think Nick has caused him any embarrassment to this point, just wait until this gets to discovery and court. Monty is bringing this part on himself. Nick has not taken ANY videos down, he is not hiding anything (that i am aware of). Both of the people involved here are somewhat of a shock jock, but at the moment it seems only one is hiding things. It sure appears to me that Monty has been. I wonder why that is? Tell me this, what do you think happens next if Nick wins?

Making Nick/Montagraph seethe, one comment at a time (Several post chains)

Devoured Eagle	Thanks @elissa clips for watching this creep so we/I don't have to
Sandy	I'm getting my creeps mixed up. Monty or Ickieta?
SnoutBaron	Did he not put his peepee in a fruit? Was I misled?
Cynthia	Apparently, he did it with his finger to simulate and then put it under the desk and pretended he was using his pecker. I mean... Nick might also do that kind of comedy if he was drunk enough

Cynthia is a Monty simp?

Cynthia	@TUGSIMP That's silly. There's nothing in Monty's videos that prove that he's a PDFile. There's evidence that he's an eccentric weirdo. The two aren't the same thing.
UnHung Hero	@ Cynthia simping hard for the creep, I see... Or are you a Monty alt?
Cynthia	@UnHung Hero It's a legal issue, my friend. Or should we publicly say any man is a PDFile with no proof?

True Comedian of Genius?

A JobDunWell

An astronomer is drinking Bud Light with another astronomer and asks “How many of these do you think it’ll take for me to get drunk?” The other astronomer replies: “Approximately 6.5 light beers”

BONUS: Matryoshka dolls of para-socialism?

Spoiler

A JobDunWell

@elissa clips awe shucks senpai noticed me...

 

[SargonF00t]

I wish someone would ask Hydro PX why he has gone off Rekieta.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Elissa posted this, Monty's making the argument slander isn't free speech (correct), and when his argument is better than Nick's "lol just apply anti-SLAAP from another state in MN which finds anti-SLAAP unconstitutional".....

Nicky Rackets says not being allowed to call Monty a child molestor is an affront to freedom, but isn't the latter far, far worse? It undermines federalism in the Constitution and would magnify all the existing problems of SLAAP laws. I guess I can appreciate Randazza trying a novel approach to law, but it doesn't sound like it would set a good precedent and you'd think Free Speech Absolutist Nick Rekieta might realize this (not that he can realize anything beside the desire to coom these days).

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Spectre is egregiously stupid and self-seeking, we’ve known that for a long time. But now he’s put Nick in this incredibly difficult position and Nick still hasn’t shed him? If Nick’s not embarrassed to have WKs like Spectre and Wolvenar, he should be. What a couple trio of limp dicked retards.

Monty needs to cut his fucking fingernails. Gross old man.

 

[Strix454]

Nicky Rackets says not being allowed to call Monty a child molestor is an affront to freedom, but isn't the latter far, far worse? It undermines federalism in the Constitution and would magnify all the existing problems of SLAAP laws. I guess I can appreciate Randazza trying a novel approach to law, but it doesn't sound like it would set a good precedent and you'd think Free Speech Absolutist Nick Rekieta might realize this (not that he can realize anything beside the desire to coom these days).

The approach can make more sense in federal cases where people are coming in from different jurisdictions into a venue where federalism isn't really an issue. But applying it in a state court is generally a bad thing (IMO). The state has made a decision not to have a SLAPP law and that needs to be respected IMO. And if a series of legal tests were done such that the facts indicated that applying the laws of another state on anti-SLAPP was the appropriate thing to do in the case, I would personally think that would also imply that the state court in question is the wrong jurisdiction for the case.

But in Nick's case, just saying that Colorado's anti-SLAPP laws apply doesn't mean he can get an anti-SLAPP verdict. He would also have to establish that him calling Monty a pedo was Nick discussing a matter of public opinion. Nick has done a number of streams about his motives for calling Monty a pedo. He has claimed that he said it because it was factual but declined to make that argument in court or present evidence of that. In one stream, he seemed to claim it was retaliation for Monty celebrating Nick's youtube ban which is not really a discussion of public opinion.

I think based on Randazza's arguments, the case is unlikely to set any precedent. If they were to win everything on the case, it would end up being a decision by one judge on the specific facts of the case. There is no great principle being argued or decided in the case. The judge could take the case in the direction of setting precedent by her opinion, but it doesn't seem to be going that way now.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

I don't know if they can ask for fees for this anti slapp nonsense, but if the judge rules against it, I'd certainly try if I was Monty. Because there is no way this argument makes sense.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I'm thinking about Spectre acting almost like a badly written fanfiction tier self-insert into this case, and then I suddenly realized this.
What if Spectre never contacted Monty or his attorney, and just went straight to Nick with a tall tale to which Randazza (Impartial and not coombrained) went "Get that ass banned out here".
It certainly fit the trend for Spectre. Would that mean that Nick's ethics complaint would be in bad faith?

Nick's ethics complaint is not based on what Spectre told him, it's based primarily on the fact that Schneider told the court that his client was a resident of Colorado, and then when Randazza tried to apply Colorado law, Schneider shit his pants and told the court that no, his client was actually a resident of Illinois, and that he didn't think his factual misrepresentation, despite costing Nick a huge amount of money, was a material misrepresentation. Honest mistake, no harm no foul.

It appears that he thinks failing to determine where your client resides - or what operative law might apply to him - as part of drafting and filing a lawsuit is just par for the course when you're a slimeball personal injury lawyer in small-town Minnesota.

That, and he's also filed a frivolous ethics complaint against Nick - attempting to levy the ethics board to infringe Nick's first amendment rights.

Nicky Rackets says not being allowed to call Monty a child molestor is an affront to freedom, but isn't the latter far, far worse? It undermines federalism in the Constitution and would magnify all the existing problems of SLAAP laws. I guess I can appreciate Randazza trying a novel approach to law, but it doesn't sound like it would set a good precedent and you'd think Free Speech Absolutist Nick Rekieta might realize this (not that he can realize anything beside the desire to coom these days).

Minnesota found Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional. It did not find Colorado's law unconstitutional, nor is there reason to believe that it is unconstitutional, because it effectively just imposes the same standard as summary judgement - all facts being assumed for the non-moving party, they still lose - and then it counter-slaps them with punitive fees. If summary judgement is unconstitutional in Minnesota, that would be surprising news to courts all across the state.

Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law was found unconstitutional because it did not assume all facts for the non-moving party - it allowed the court to weigh facts, and was thus found unconstitutional because it denied the right to have a jury weigh the facts. Colorado's law does not have this defect.

The only thing that the Colorado law does that the operative Minnesota laws don't is it makes fees levied on the SLAPP plaintiff - which would normally be up to the court's discretion - mandatory. Nick could have just moved for summary judgement under Minnesota law; but if he moves and wins under the Colorado law, the exact same legal standard will apply, but he'll be automatically owed fees. This is not unconstitutional.

 

[Strix454]

Nick's ethics complaint is not based on what Spectre told him, it's based primarily on the fact that Schneider told the court that his client was a resident of Colorado, and then when Randazza tried to apply Colorado law, Schneider shit his pants and told the court that no, his client was actually a resident of Illinois, and that he didn't think his factual misrepresentation, despite costing Nick a huge amount of money, was a material misrepresentation. Honest mistake, no harm no foul.

On streams Nick has repeatedly claimed to be preparing an ethics complaint based on things that came from spectre. He talks about his shorts. He talks about Schneider lying to spectre (without saying its spectre of course). The argument over residency has usually been the issue around which Nick has claimed he intends to ask for financial sanctions against Schneider over at the end of the case.

 

[AnOminous]

I guess I can appreciate Randazza trying a novel approach to law, but it doesn't sound like it would set a good precedent and you'd think Free Speech Absolutist Nick Rekieta might realize this (not that he can realize anything beside the desire to coom these days).

He's openly gone full SJW and literally denounces free speech now. He hates free speech. He is a complete authoritarian garbage person.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

We all saw this coming at least a year ago, right?

 

[Terrifik]

We all saw this coming at least a year ago, right?

on the lawsuit - yes obviously Nick got to internet famous from the law stream ofcorsce that will put a bullseye on him.

free speech question - always been the case & again the saying goes free speech is an illusion there is only controlled & allowed speech in the current era.

degenerates are always protected by the law.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Nick's ethics complaint is not based on what Spectre told him, it's based primarily on the fact that Schneider told the court that his client was a resident of Colorado, and then when Randazza tried to apply Colorado law, Schneider shit his pants and told the court that no, his client was actually a resident of Illinois, and that he didn't think his factual misrepresentation, despite costing Nick a huge amount of money, was a material misrepresentation. Honest mistake, no harm no foul.

As @Strix454 said, Nick's narrative has changed. His new narrative is that he will be filing an ethics complaint against Schneider because (as he said in a stream this month) Schneider "lied to multiple people, including one of my moderators". I guess the claim being suggested is that Schneider had a grudge against Nick and filed a frivolous lawsuit as a result.

Schneider was put on notice in February about a motion for sanctions in relation to the residency issue. That notice period has completed multiple times over. Rekieta could have filed a motion for sanctions any time in the last five or so weeks. No motion for sanctions has been filed.

In the interim Rekieta's emphasis of the residency issue has decreased and he's started talking about the Spectre phone call more.

In any case I would find it to be odd for Rekieta to seek redress over the residency issue in such a way that prevents him from actually getting recompensed.

The argument over residency has usually been the issue around which Nick has claimed he intends to ask for financial sanctions against Schneider over at the end of the case.

The motion for sanctions could have been filed over a month ago.

I believe the asking for costs at the end is a separate avenue where Rekieta believes he can ask for costs to be awarded if he prevails on the motion to dismiss.

The way to disambiguate the two is that if the motion for sanctions was filed they would be most likely be trying to recover costs from Schneider (since he is more likely to pay), and otherwise they would be looking for a judgement against Monty. Rekieta has been talking about having a judgement against Monty as a warning against other potential litigants even if he can't collect which suggests he's currently focusing on the latter.