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

[Kosher Salt]

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.

Yeah I guess. I do remember him harping on how Schneider (allegedly) said that Nick never responded to their discovery requests and Nick has proof that he did.

But if he's basing this entirely on Spectre's word, I guess he deserves whatever he gets. I hope he's got some written communications from Schneider to back it up.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Yeah I guess. I do remember him harping on how Schneider (allegedly) said that Nick never responded to their discovery requests and Nick has proof that he did.

But if he's basing this entirely on Spectre's word, I guess he deserves whatever he gets. I hope he's got some written communications from Schneider to back it up.

I think it's as simple as the difference being that Nick can send in an ethics complaint based on Spectre's drivel himself, whereas although a motion for sanctions could potentially result in Rekieta getting paid, it would have to be written by Randazza.

 

[Uncle Buck]

As far as artistic/cinematographic merit goes, Monty's little film struck me as being largely worthless and pointless. But I'm a lot more comfortable defending Monty's right to make suggestive movies with adult models, regardless of how tasteless or unpleasant they might be, than I am defending Rekieta's right to defame somebody by falsely accusing them of a heinous crime that they haven't actually committed.

I don't believe Mountebank's "right" to make perverse works of fiction was ever in question. That said, and please correct me if I'm wrong, was not the subject matter of that work the idea that Jonbenet Ramsey was murdered [and, as has long been suspected, raped] by the titular "Umbrella Man", a serial killer depicted - in an entirely prurient way - as engaged in the rape and murder of subsequent child victim? And yes, it's pretty much a given that the actress involved was not actually raped or murdered, nor is there any evidence that she was underage. The point is what the work is meant to depict and the mindset of the person who created it; people who create works of fiction are often judged - and that harshly - based on the content of their work.

 

[Strix454]

I don't believe Mountebank's "right" to make perverse works of fiction was ever in question. That said, and please correct me if I'm wrong, was not the subject matter of that work the idea that Jonbenet Ramsey was murdered [and, as has long been suspected, raped] by the titular "Umbrella Man", a serial killer depicted - in an entirely prurient way - as engaged in the rape and murder of subsequent child victim? And yes, it's pretty much a given that the actress involved was not actually raped or murdered, nor is there any evidence that she was underage. The point is what the work is meant to depict and the mindset of the person who created it; people who create works of fiction are often judged - and that harshly - based on the content of their work.

I don't really get that the video is in any way about jonbenet Ramsey. And if you watch the full video, the Umbrella Man seems to be a shoutout to Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theory. The connection back to Jonbenet Ramsey seemed to be mostly through Monty's fellow conspiracy autists who have for years been peddling Monty as actually responsible for the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey. I'd be interested if there was some connection to an umbrella man in the jonbenet ramsey thing that doesn't end up originating with a Monty story.

The thing about the film is that whole version of it amounts to low budget horror. You have a guy in a mask doing bad acting and a bad character voice doing cheap horror movie things that never really deliver. No sex. No nudity. No torture porn. Just a guy in a mask being creepy with a clearly adult woman who is tied up. The serial killer is also given an elaborately stupid background that blames the kennedy assassination for what he is doing. There is also a whole crying montage at the end. It comes across as a bad and amaturish "art" film.

Its not so much " prurient" as its just stupid. The noterity of the thing grew based on people not being able to see the whole thing. There were stills and there were clips and everything seemed to suggest that the clips/stills were leading up to something really awful. Usually described as a child snuff film. There were stories about the supposedly unreleased final two parts. But then if you see the whole thing, its just dumb. The best that can be said about it is that it delivers some genuinely unsettling moments of build-up.

Monty is a genuinely awful guy and if he were convicted of any number of things in the future, It would not shock me the least. If he had an unrevealed background of awful things, that would not surprise me either. But as of now, there is no proof of that. He is just a broke dirty old boomer conspiracy theorist who was worth a laugh in 2019.

 

[Uncle Buck]

The connection back to Jonbenet Ramsey seemed to be mostly through Monty's fellow conspiracy autists who have for years been peddling Monty as actually responsible for the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey. I'd be interested if there was some connection to an umbrella man in the jonbenet ramsey thing that doesn't end up originating with a Monty story.

That's news to me... I was under the impression @BradCarter was responsible for the murder of JBR... At least that's what "Detective" Richard Cardo told me.

In all seriousness, if there are people out there claiming things like that I suggest they're as goofy as Mountebank. But thank you for the information. And why, given that there are people out there claiming that he was responsible for the JBR event, is he suing Rackets for a much less severe allegation that borders on Falwellian?

 

[Balldo's Gate]

That's news to me... I was under the impression @BradCarter was responsible for the murder of JBR... At least that's what "Detective" Richard Cardo told me.

In all seriousness, if there are people out there claiming things like that I suggest they're as goofy as Mountebank. But thank you for the information.

As the Reddit post you linked to suggests, the links of the video to that case seem to trace back to a single guy who appears to believe that Monty may have been part of a satanic cult that carried out that crime (he thinks that an entity known as "The Firm" wants to erase his brain). The insane and baseless claims from this individual were cited in both Rekieta's motion to dismiss and his reply to the opposition to the motion to dismiss. As far as I can tell, the only pieces of actual evidence cited were that the video contained a checkerboard pattern and that Monty lived in Colorado.

This individual also appears to be the main person advancing claims that the obviously adult individual in the video was a child, which is also a key part of what Rekieta said.

 

[Kosher Salt]

And why, given that there are people out there claiming that he was responsible for the JBR event, is he suing Rackets for a much less severe allegation that borders on Falwellian?

1) He knows who Nick is
2) He knows how much Nick makes
3) He found a lawyer dumb enough to write it

 

[The-Patriarchy]

Honestly, Nick should've challenged jurisdiction, and tried to move the trial to Colorado, where it was probably more appropriate to be filed in the first place (Nick reached into Monty's state with his alleged defamation). Clearly, Monty chose to sue in MN because the anti-SLAAP laws there are more favorable to him than Colorado, which is why Schneider is in a huff about Randazza asking to apply Colorado Anti-SLAAP, I would argue that if Randazza's choice of laws motion is upheld and Colorado anti-SLAAP applies, they may as well just admit that Colorado has jurisdiction and move venue there.

 

[Owlbear]

Honestly, Nick should've challenged jurisdiction, and tried to move the trial to Colorado, where it was probably more appropriate to be filed in the first place (Nick reached into Monty's state with his alleged defamation). Clearly, Monty chose to sue in MN because the anti-SLAAP laws there are more favorable to him than Colorado, which is why Schneider is in a huff about Randazza asking to apply Colorado Anti-SLAAP, I would argue that if Randazza's choice of laws motion is upheld and Colorado anti-SLAAP applies, they may as well just admit that Colorado has jurisdiction and move venue there.

There are rules about how and when you can move a case to a different court. Rekieta probably can't move the case to a different state court because:
1. He lives in that jurisdiction, and that's where his company has its principal place of business. He can't argue that the forum is inconvenient because it's literally the most convenient forum for him.
2. The injury arguably occurred in that jurisdiction because it's where the statements were made and broadcast from.

He could always try to move the case to federal court (in the District of Minnesota) if he could argue that the damages are high enough, but then he would have to contend with the fact that there's no anti-SLAPP there either, so the logic of the Colorado "Hail Mary" would apply.

 

[AnOminous]

He could always try to move the case to federal court (in the District of Minnesota) if he could argue that the damages are high enough, but then he would have to contend with the fact that there's no anti-SLAPP there either, so the logic of the Colorado "Hail Mary" would apply.

The forum defendant rule doesn't allow him to remove to federal court on diversity jurisdiction. There would have to be a federal issue in the complaint.

 

[Strix454]

Honestly, Nick should've challenged jurisdiction, and tried to move the trial to Colorado, where it was probably more appropriate to be filed in the first place (Nick reached into Monty's state with his alleged defamation). Clearly, Monty chose to sue in MN because the anti-SLAAP laws there are more favorable to him than Colorado, which is why Schneider is in a huff about Randazza asking to apply Colorado Anti-SLAAP, I would argue that if Randazza's choice of laws motion is upheld and Colorado anti-SLAAP applies, they may as well just admit that Colorado has jurisdiction and move venue there.

Monty filed in Minnesota likely because it was the place where a dismissal based on jurisdiction was the least likely. Filing in the defendant's back yard has alot of advantages, but people usually don't do it because of the expense and due to the difficulty of finding an attorney. If the case had been brought in Colorado, it probably would have been dismissed on jurisdiction. But in Minnesota, Nick's side couldn't even make much of any argument on jurisdiction.

The other massive benefit to filing in Minnesota is that there is legal precedent in the state for calling someone a pedo being per se defamation. That puts Nick at a large disadvantage in the case.

Even if Nick manages to get Colorado's anti-SLAPP law brought into the case, he will likely have a hard time making a convincing argument that calling a person a pedo as a statement of fact meets the standard for anti-SLAPP. The judge also didn't seem to show much interest in that argument in the last hearing.

Nick's best path to victory IMO is getting monty declared some type of public figure and trying to shift the core argument in the case to being around Nick having malice in what he said.

It will be interesting to see what the judge does with the summary judgement motion. IMO it could still go either way. Alot of judges would see the whole thing as a garbage case and look for any excuse to get rid of it. (see Ethan Ralph's victory yesterday for an example of that happening). But there are others who might keep it going just for entertainment value or to punish all of them by forcing them to spend more of their money.

 

[BradCarter]

That's news to me... I was under the impression @BradCarter was responsible for the murder of JBR... At least that's what "Detective" Richard Cardo told me.

In all seriousness, if there are people out there claiming things like that I suggest they're as goofy as Mountebank. But thank you for the information. And why, given that there are people out there claiming that he was responsible for the JBR event, is he suing Rackets for a much less severe allegation that borders on Falwellian?

I did. Then I prank called all the wine moms on message boards trying to solve the murder for my own twisted satisfaction

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Monty filed in Minnesota likely because it was the place where a dismissal based on jurisdiction was the least likely. Filing in the defendant's back yard has alot of advantages, but people usually don't do it because of the expense and due to the difficulty of finding an attorney. If the case had been brought in Colorado, it probably would have been dismissed on jurisdiction. But in Minnesota, Nick's side couldn't even make much of any argument on jurisdiction.

The other massive benefit to filing in Minnesota is that there is legal precedent in the state for calling someone a pedo being per se defamation. That puts Nick at a large disadvantage in the case.

I don't think a lot of strategic thought went into the choice of venue. I could believe Monty being under the impression that suing a defendant in their state of residence could be easier in general so he hit up local attorneys. AFAIK in his pro se suit filed in Colorado he paid NC police to serve the defendant, and although they properly served the guy according to NC rules, he was not properly served in the eyes of Colorado. So the suit was dismissed and people still claim that it was based on the factual merits of the case rather technical issues like lack of proper service (and the fact that the suit was horribly written in general).

As for the more technical issues like anti-SLAPP or case law or whatever, I really, really, really struggle to believe that Monty was going to that level of venue shopping. If he was he would have claimed IL residency from the beginning and totally avoid Randazza's choice of law argument. The fact that Monty filed stating he was resident in a state with a strong anti-SLAPP when he actually lives in a state with a weaker one is a pretty big mark against Rekieta's claim that the guy is venue shopping.

 

[Kosher Salt]

he actually lives in a state with a weaker one

Does he? Do we know he does? Or do we know he claims he does?

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Does he? Do we know he does? Or do we know he claims he does?

Well, that's kind of the point. If Monty was engaging in venue shopping he would have figured out that he shouldn't claim to be in Colorado and could just claim to be in Illinois from the beginning.

I suppose if this goes to discovery Rekieta might be able to ask him more about the residency issue, but as of right now he doesn't appear to actually have any evidence to suspect Monty was lying or acting disingenuous at any point, because otherwise I'm guessing he would have filed a motion for sanctions by now.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I suppose if this goes to discovery Rekieta might be able to ask him more about the residency issue, but as of right now he doesn't appear to actually have any evidence to suspect Monty was lying or acting disingenuous at any point, because otherwise I'm guessing he would have filed a motion for sanctions by now.

IIRC he's referred to Monty posting on Twitter or something indicating that he was still in Colorado sometime around the beginning of the lawsuit.

Motions are expensive. Motions are especially expensive when you're having Randazza write them. I assume he's either saving it for the ethics complaint, or he's going to wait to see whether the anti-SLAPP motion is successful before he throws more money into the black hole.

 

[Swole McPole]

It will be interesting to see what the judge does with the summary judgement motion. IMO it could still go either way.

Normally, I'd agree with you. However, in this case with Randazza being an outsider who's obviously determined to do a bit of grandstanding, and Schneider being a local boy who must show up in her court on the regular, my feeling is that she's very likely to give it a bit of a punt and see where it goes -- if only to attempt to persuade Rekieta to settle and make the whole thing go away.

I'm also strongly suspecting that if he doesn't manage to get a summary judgement, Rekieta's gonna settle. He's already showed us that his principles mean nothing when his bankbook is threatened -- by the expulsion of Cynthia and Hydro from his locals group. This lawsuit is costing him a damn sight more than a couple of loud mouthed critics ever could. And that Fox News settlement must have made his sphincter go into spastic overdrive in terror.

 

[Strix454]

Normally, I'd agree with you. However, in this case with Randazza being an outsider who's obviously determined to do a bit of grandstanding, and Schneider being a local boy who must show up in her court on the regular, my feeling is that she's very likely to give it a bit of a punt and see where it goes -- if only to attempt to persuade Rekieta to settle and make the whole thing go away.

She has given very little away so far in terms of favoring one side or the other. My reading of the last hearing is that she has decided to do something relatively straightforward with the summary judgement motion. But that could either to be reject it or find a narrow ground with something like public figure to dismiss the case out of the court system. If the judge was going to go down the rabbit hole of applying Colorado law, I think there would have been questions in the hearing about those issues.

The judge by history seems to sometimes be opinionated and strong willed which makes it IMO slightly less predictable.

If the summary judgement isn't successful, it probably goes to depositions which isn't going to bother the judge much one way or the other. After the depositions is usually where the judge is going to start putting real pressure on both sides to settle and punishing the motions of the side that looks the most unreasonable.

I also agree that if he doesn't get the summary judgement, he probably will settle. Nick's first master plan was expecting monty to be his own attorney. Nick's second master plan was to spend a fortune on legal fees thinking he could get an anti-SLAPP summary judgement against Monty. I don't see a third master plan arising. The case will just become even more stupid and also incredibly expensive & time consuming for Nick if it continues.

 

[Kosher Salt]

If I were a betting man I'd say she treats it at a motion for summary dismissal, grants the motion, and lets the appellate courts worry about whether Nick should get any fees under Colorado's law.

But it might just be that the pessimist in me expects to see nobody happy with the outcome.

 

[AnOminous]

But it might just be that the pessimist in me expects to see nobody happy with the outcome.

I'm hoping everyone loses somehow.