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

[Owlbear]

He says he's going to do it in court. So Monty and his shitbag lawyer are claiming he threatened to publicly rape a guy in court. That was obvious shit talk and not a real threat.

I don't think that's the exact moment that Schneider/Monty are referring to as the rape threat. At 6:15 in the linked video, the talk becomes a lot more explicit about exactly how Nick Rekieta will sodomize Schneider, and it's not a description of how he's going so sue him.

It's definitely a stretch to say that this is a real rape threat, though, given the "I will fuck you in court" a minute earlier. We truly are living in the most hilarious timeline.

 

[nut butter]

He says he's going to do it in court. So Monty and his shitbag lawyer are claiming he threatened to publicly rape a guy in court. That was obvious shit talk and not a real threat.

Do you think it was smart to file it even if it was clearly shit talk? Nick sounded a little nuts saying he was going to fuck the guy raw. It might make the judge dislike Nick more, even if judges are supposed to be above that sort of bias.

 

[Botchy Galoop]

After watching that clip of Nick talking about ass fucking Schneider, I am embarrassed to admit that at one time, I used to think that Rekeita, while a bit of a wild card, could always be counted on to come with some witty repartee.
Are we certain that the "worst news of his life" wasn't a diagnoses of a terminal brain tumor?
The man is now just sloppy and unfunny. Sad.

 

[AnOminous]

Do you think it was smart to file it even if it was clearly shit talk? Nick sounded a little nuts saying he was going to fuck the guy raw. It might make the judge dislike Nick more, even if judges are supposed to be above that sort of bias.

Nick didn't file it. And no I don't think it was particularly bright of Monty to file it either. Both sides look like complete idiots. At least if the judge fails to respond to it, though, it becomes another thing to add to the appeal, or a motion to recuse, or some other expensive bullshit that will just delay everything.

I'm sure Randazza is for anything that will jack up the billables.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

This is unreal. That's probably the most insane development in this lolsuit so far.

Rekieta has been paying thousands of dollars to Randazza to advertise to the judge that Nick got drunk and said some stupid shit, AGAIN?

It appears from the letter that there has been multiple back and forths with Schneider where they demand Schneider back up his claims. Schneider confirms he has sent the video to the court AND TO THE "LAWYER'S BOARD" - presumably a reference to the OLPR. Oops!



As I said at the time Schneider brought this up, I don't really believe this to have been intended as a legitimate threat against him. However, the idea that it's somehow sanctionable when Nick said what he said is kind of ludicrous. Same with the idea that he's paying Randazza to complain over this as opposed to filing a motion for sanctions over the residency issue.

I do love the whining (on the next page) about how the video does not in fact "speak for itself" and needs a transcript. I'm pretty sure that clip speaks for itself!

That was obvious shit talk and not a real threat.

That's one way to interpret what was said. It's almost certainly the way Nick intended it.

It's not the only valid way, though.

I get the impression that most people involved in this case who aren't Rekieta or Randazza (and Monty, I guess) are not going to be particularly Internet savvy and will probably be more likely to take those words literally.

Nick didn't file it.

Based on the screenshot I posted above, Schneider only filed anything after Randazza wrote to him on April 14 and demanded he either apologize or substantiate his claim. Schneider chose the latter, presumably because it was VERY easy for him to do.

So Nick did force this issue.

Do you think it was smart to file it even if it was clearly shit talk? Nick sounded a little nuts saying he was going to fuck the guy raw. It might make the judge dislike Nick more, even if judges are supposed to be above that sort of bias.

"Hey judge, I know my client is a lawyer who's practiced before you before and really should fucking know better, but he got sloshed and started talking about how he was going to fuck opposing counsel in the ass. He was joking and it is really mean to hold that against him. Did you miss how that happened? Well let me wave this in your face until you figure out what he said." - Basically what Nick's very high priced attorney said.

The judge could not sound less interested in oral arguments and Schneider only mentioned it as an aside. I doubt she particularly cared at all until now that Randazza's made it her problem. I can only presume that Nick got butthurt about this and demanded he do it.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

It's ironic that with all the talk and threats of ass fucking, that Nick is the one who is butthurt.

Maybe he thought that after oral arguments were done, they would move on to anal arguments.

 

[AnOminous]

Based on the screenshot I posted above, Schneider only filed anything after Randazza wrote to him on April 14 and demanded he either apologize or substantiate his claim. Schneider chose the latter, presumably because it was VERY easy for him to do.

If you file for sanctions for something, you generally have to have warned the opposing party first and given an opportunity to retract. Courts don't appreciate gotcha games where you don't do that.

Also it's pretty much shenanigans to send a lengthy video to a judge and basically say "yeah you go find the proof for what I said in this." You're supposed to provide a transcript, or at the very least, timestamps where it was said.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

If you file for sanctions for something, you generally have to have warned the opposing party first and given an opportunity to retract. Courts don't appreciate gotcha games where you don't do that.

I was just pointing out it's Nick that is keeping this issue alive.

I doubt they will file an actual motion for sanctions over this considering they've had the opportunity to that for a month and a half over the residency issue, which is obviously more promising, and the only action Nick's taken that we know of since then is to have his lawyer whine about it at the end of this letter instead.

Also it's pretty much shenanigans to send a lengthy video to a judge and basically say "yeah you go find the proof for what I said in this." You're supposed to provide a transcript, or at the very least, timestamps where it was said.

Part of why the extent that Nick has gotten butthurt over Schneider is so fucking funny is the vast disparity in time and effort being spent on the case by the two sides. I mean, I get that the reason for that is that Nick is throwing his money down a pit and Schneider is probably already giving this case more energy than it deserves, but still.

 

[AnOminous]

I was just pointing out it's Nick that is keeping this issue alive.

Well if you want to file for sanctions or appeal something, you kind of have to keep the issue alive. Otherwise it's dead.

 

[TheClappening]

Do you think it was smart to file it even if it was clearly shit talk? Nick sounded a little nuts saying he was going to fuck the guy raw. It might make the judge dislike Nick more, even if judges are supposed to be above that sort of bias.

What do you call a lawyer with a low IQ?

Your honor.

 

[Strix454]

View attachment 5094492

Correspondence from Randazza.

Producing this document was a waste of yet more of Nick's money.

Its all just petty nonsense.

Randazza claims that the judge's consideration of his "anti-SLAPP" motion - which is in fact not really an anti-SLAPP motion - could be prejudiced. Then he starts talking about sanctions and minnesota precedent for sanctions because poor Nick has been so burdened by all of it.

It would have been better while the motion was being considered to just be quiet. It would have been better yet not to misrepresent the motion as something it is not. Assuming that you have somehow already won on the question of applying colorado law.

What I wonder is if this is literally trying to set up grounds for further legal action if the judge denies the summary judgement motion. Saying effectively that they are going to claim that any potential ruling against their summary judgement was based on prejudice.

Of course there is lots of good if they do that. Its the most lengthy and expensive path Nick could take in the case.

 

[Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown]

After watching that clip of Nick talking about ass fucking Schneider, I am embarrassed to admit that at one time, I used to think that Rekeita, while a bit of a wild card, could always be counted on to come with some witty repartee.
Are we certain that the "worst news of his life" wasn't a diagnoses of a terminal brain tumor?
The man is now just sloppy and unfunny. Sad.

Nick's debate with DuncanCan'tDie was only six months ago.

While Nick did get drunk and relied heavily on slurs, there's just no way that Nick could repeat such a performance in 2023 even against another target as soft as Duncan.

 

[AnOminous]

What I wonder is if this is literally trying to set up grounds for further legal action if the judge denies the summary judgement motion. Saying effectively that they are going to claim that any potential ruling against their summary judgement was based on prejudice.

I'd be willing to bet that's exactly what it is. Refusing to allow rebuttal of absolutely new factual claims introduced at a hearing on a dispositive motion (based on no evidence of record) is questionable at best, and evidence of prejudice at worst.

 

[Swole McPole]

He says he's going to do it in court. So Monty and his shitbag lawyer are claiming he threatened to publicly rape a guy in court. That was obvious shit talk and not a real threat.

Does that matter? I always believed that Monty's lawyer never believed that Nick was actually going to rape him -- he was affronted by the absolute lack of decorum displayed towards a fellow lawyer and wanted to bring that to the judges attention.

By doing so, he reported what Nick actually said. What Nick meant by that, surely only Nick can say.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

Does that matter? I always believed that Monty's lawyer never believed that Nick was actually going to rape him -- he was affronted by the absolute lack of decorum displayed towards a fellow lawyer and wanted to bring that to the judges attention.

By doing so, he reported what Nick actually said. What Nick meant by that, surely only Nick can say.

Schneider is acting like a bitch.

"Waaaaaaahhhhh....he said mean things" if he ever ventures to the big city and practices, he'll likely become a weeping mess

 

[Kosher Salt]

Presumably this is the rape threat that Schneider is complaining about and Randazza is insisting isn't a rape threat. I can't see it endearing Nick to the judge much.

When Nick says 'I'm coming to fuck your ass', he obviously means he's going to do it consensually?

No, he means he's going to do it in court, via the legal process. It's quite obviously figurative speech.

It appears from the letter that there has been multiple back and forths with Schneider where they demand Schneider back up his claims. Schneider confirms he has sent the video to the court AND TO THE "LAWYER'S BOARD" - presumably a reference to the OLPR. Oops!

Presumably another thing for Nick to add to his own ethics complaint, if Schneider repeated this lie to both the court and the OLPR.

Also it's pretty much shenanigans to send a lengthy video to a judge and basically say "yeah you go find the proof for what I said in this." You're supposed to provide a transcript, or at the very least, timestamps where it was said.

We don't have the attachments referenced in the correspondence, so I can't say it doesn't include a transcript, but it doesn't appear that Schneider has bothered to provide a transcript for where the "rape threat" occurred either, and apparently his response to Randazza's request that he substantiate his claim, he replied "relax" and "[the video] speaks for itself."

The video might speak for itself, but Schneider clearly prefers to misrepresent it.

 

[Strix454]

Does that matter?

Thinking about it more.....

It does matter as thin grounds to try to argue later for an appeal if the case goes badly. The letter IMO is ironically very little about Schneider and mostly about laying down a marker to later go after the judge's conduct of the case if things don't go well for them.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Well if you want to file for sanctions or appeal something, you kind of have to keep the issue alive. Otherwise it's dead.

Well, if Nick had any intention of ever practicing law in Kandiyohi County again, I certainly would recommend letting the issue stay dead rather than bring more attention to it.

Maybe there's a reason he let Rekieta Law LLC expire.

It does matter as thin grounds to try to argue later for an appeal if the case goes badly. The letter IMO is ironically very little about Schneider and mostly about laying down a marker to later go after the judge's conduct of the case if things don't go well for them.

Well, as I'm pretty sure the letter concedes, whether the threat was a legitimate threat or a joke or metaphor has absolutely no bearing on the matter at hand. It's totally irrelevant to whether the suit against Nick for things he said about someone else, all of which he said before the case was filed, can proceed.

If she had let a jury hear that I can certainly see why Rekieta would be outraged.

What's next? Are they going to say that she's biased because she heard Nick whine about her on his show?

The video might speak for itself, but Schneider clearly prefers to misrepresent it.

It's really simple. Nick could have just not been an obviously drunk moron who gets mad when people choose to take his words literally and seriously rather than those of a moron who is obviously drunk.

That advice, and the extent to which he follows it, is very related to why he got sued in the first place.

There's a very obvious solution available to Nick, namely don't get as trashed as you have been on your shows and keep yourself under control, but we'll see if he goes down that route.

 

[AnOminous]

Does that matter? I always believed that Monty's lawyer never believed that Nick was actually going to rape him -- he was affronted by the absolute lack of decorum displayed towards a fellow lawyer and wanted to bring that to the judges attention.

You don't do that by introducing it for the first time in a hearing on a dispositive motion and completely unsubstantiated.

It's really simple. Nick could have just not been an obviously drunk moron who gets mad when people choose to take his words literally and seriously rather than those of a moron who is obviously drunk.

I'm not sure if Randazza has directly told Nick this yet, but he does appear to be setting up a "moron who was obviously drunk" defense if it goes to trial.

What's next? Are they going to say that she's biased because she heard Nick whine about her on his show?

Maybe but you don't get to deliberately provoke the judge then claim she's biased.

A better argument is she didn't allow a rebuttal to newly introduced factual claims unsupported by anything in the record. The proper move by the judge would be explicitly to deny this claim factored into her reasoning at all if she denies the motion. For all we know it will be granted despite Nick's jackassery.

"Waaaaaaahhhhh....he said mean things" if he ever ventures to the big city and practices, he'll likely become a weeping mess

Remember the tale of Christopher Hook, though. Relevant quote: "I'm going to let the long dick of the law fuck Allstate for all of us."

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

The video might speak for itself, but Schneider clearly prefers to misrepresent it.

Waaaa?! A lawyer would misrepresent the facts fir the benefit of their client? Say it ain't so?
I'm not surprised by the pettiness of this lolsuit but I'm wondering how the Clerk is trying to cope with the loss of brain cells
the "evidence" submitted by both parties have caused.

Remember the tale of Christopher Hook, though. Relevant quote: "I'm going to let the long dick of the law fuck Allstate for all of us."

The irony is that Nick might end up in a worse position than Hook did.