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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
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.
The truth is the best defense!

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.
I'm sure that's exactly what's going to happen, especially since I can't see a valid reason this information would factor in to her decision even if it was completely true. And I doubt she really wants to spend any more time on this nonsense than she has to.
 
You don't do that by introducing it for the first time in a hearing on a dispositive motion and completely unsubstantiated.

Hey, we've seen Schneider's original filing. I don't think anybody thinks he's the smartest or most sophisticated lawyer in Minnesota. Probably not the smartest or most sophisticated lawyer in whichever little shithole town it is they all practise in. He wouldn't be taking Monty's case if he was.

But if I'm the judge, I'm instinctively siding with the guy who's making procedural mistakes over the guy who's acting like a fucking douchebag, all day every day. I might try my best to override my biases, but deep down I'm always hoping that the douchebag is going to lose. So you start looking for reasons. Not giving him the benefit of the doubt when you might otherwise have done so.

And all that goes doubly so if I'm the judge in a defamation case. Some cunt has been dragged up in front of my bench because he's been talking recklessly, casting aspersions on somebody's sexual preferences and behaviour, and the self-same cunt can't stop himself from talking recklessly about the plaintiff's lawyer? Regardless of what they say about such behaviour in court, I find it hard to imagine that there wouldn't be a judge out there who wouldn't take a dim view of an obnoxious cunt like that. And I'm guessing that's all doubly true if said obnoxious cunt is actually a lawyer themselves.

One thing is for damn sure though. When you listen to Nick engaged in his drunken rant about how he's going to fuck Schneider's ass, it's a very different Nick from that cocky, self-confident character who was inviting Monty to sue him. If anyone was looking for a perfect, live action illustration of the old axiom, 'be careful what you wish for', you'd be hard pressed to find a better example.
 
But if I'm the judge, I'm instinctively siding with the guy who's making procedural mistakes over the guy who's acting like a fucking douchebag, all day every day.
That's not a procedural mistake, that's deliberately playing games. He may be dumb but he's not that dumb.
 
That's not a procedural mistake, that's deliberately playing games. He may be dumb but he's not that dumb.

I dunno. If someone's provoking you by publicly telling the world that they're going to rape your ass in court, I think it's perfectly understandable that you'd want to bring that to the attention of the court. The judge is obviously going to decide what kind of weight they place on that. If it's the kind of egregious bad faith act that you and Randazza seem to think it is, presumably the judge would recognize that.

Alternatively, the judge might just assume that Rekieta's shit talking got to Schneider and he found himself engaging in some shit talking of his own. And given that Schneider almost certainly knows the judge and is up before her on the regular, I don't see any way he's not getting the benefit of the doubt here.
 
That's not a procedural mistake, that's deliberately playing games. He may be dumb but he's not that dumb.
He has effectively ended Nick's career as a practicing lawyer in that court. If Nick weren't such a bitch Schneider wouldn't have been able to fuck him like one.

"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 irony is that Nick might end up in a worse position than Hook did.
 
I dunno. If someone's provoking you by publicly telling the world that they're going to rape your ass in court, I think it's perfectly understandable that you'd want to bring that to the attention of the court. The judge is obviously going to decide what kind of weight they place on that. If it's the kind of egregious bad faith act that you and Randazza seem to think it is, presumably the judge would recognize that.

Alternatively, the judge might just assume that Rekieta's shit talking got to Schneider and he found himself engaging in some shit talking of his own. And given that Schneider almost certainly knows the judge and is up before her on the regular, I don't see any way he's not getting the benefit of the doubt here.
It's a stretch to assume the judge cares one bit about internet slap fights. What the judge should and probably does care about is what is actually alleged in the filings and what are the meritorious defenses.

Alot of the stuff Randazza is bringing up are state of mind questions. Motive for doing and saying things. These are things that can be brought up, but this is not the stage of the trial for it. There has been no discovery yet. No depositions. Randazza does not LEGALLY know wtf Monty is thinking. His arguments to that effect are guesses as far as the judge is concerned. They could very well be good guesses, but we aren't at the fact finding phase.

This phase is procedural. And the simple truth is Rackets and Randazza have not presented a single procedural error, to include the all important failure to state a claim. Monty is gonna win this round.
 

Wise words from someone with a cameo appearance in the video Schneider submitted to the court.
Someone dig up the old clip of Nick saying "How much does a lawsuit cost? More than you can afford!" because it's so damn memorable. Nick should take some advice from better lawyers like this guy or 2019 Nick.
 
I dunno. If someone's provoking you by publicly telling the world that they're going to rape your ass in court, I think it's perfectly understandable that you'd want to bring that to the attention of the court.
There are ways of doing that. Trying to sneak it in when it's completely irrelevant to a hearing about something else, with the intent to deprive the other party of even being able to respond to it is at best shenanigans.

There was no evidence of record supporting this bullshit. He just threw it in at the end of a hearing on a dispositive motion, when it was completely novel to the court, with the obvious intent of depriving the opposing party of being able to rebut it.

There is seriously no defense for this bullshit.

Just because Nick is an obvious loser doesn't mean the dickhead who is opposing him is somehow a legal genius. He's a complete piece of shit!
 
There are ways of doing that. Trying to sneak it in when it's completely irrelevant to a hearing about something else, with the intent to deprive the other party of even being able to respond to it is at best shenanigans.

Sure. I guess when you do this for a living, you know what the rules are. My only point really is that butthurt people do stupid things.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: AnOminous
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.


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?


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.
Just a note that the LLC is not related to his legal practice. I think that you are a PLLC in the States for a law practice.

Correct me, if mistaken, but he keeps up his malpractice insurance and his bar registration, if only for the ability to claim he is a lawyer. He is probably paying for his law library subscriptions too, even if he does not use them.
 
Just a note that the LLC is not related to his legal practice. I think that you are a PLLC in the States for a law practice.

Correct me, if mistaken, but he keeps up his malpractice insurance and his bar registration, if only for the ability to claim he is a lawyer. He is probably paying for his law library subscriptions too, even if he does not use them.
No. Rekieta Law LLC, a Minnesota corporation, was for his law practice,

He also had Rekieta Media, a Texas corporation.

Both expired. Schneider brought Rekieta Law LLC's status to Rekieta's attention through his filings but I don't know if he knows Rekieta Media has expired.

The insurance was discussed very recently and it was found he was maintaining the insurance.
 
I'll just point out that the "He threatened to rape me!" thing didn't even appear to move the needle for the judge, because she didn't bother to allow him a rebuttal argument. Either she knows it's complete bullshit or she already hates Nick so much that it didn't phase her.

One theory would be that she knows she is dealing with children to a degree on both sides and refuses to get dragged into their nonsense. They made a motion to dismiss, she gave them both their moment to talk and then she kind of made it clear she didn't want to hear any more from any of them.

It was also the right thing to do. Nick's desire for more man-sex doesn't really bear on the motion one way or another.

Just a note that the LLC is not related to his legal practice. I think that you are a PLLC in the States for a law practice.

Most of the time, a PLLC is only necessary for a practice with multiple people in it. One of the main differences between an LLC and a PLLC is how liability for things like malpractice are handled. The PLLC is legally structured such that everyone is not held liable for the bad actions of a single person that is part of the LLC.
 
They made a motion to dismiss, she gave them both their moment to talk and then she kind of made it clear she didn't want to hear any more from any of them.
When one party introduces new material, the proper practice is to allow a rebuttal, for the limited purpose of responding to the new material.

Just because both parties are lolcows does not mean that it is impossible that there is also a loljudge.

In fact that's customary in lolsuits.
 
When one party introduces new material, the proper practice is to allow a rebuttal, for the limited purpose of responding to the new material.

Just because both parties are lolcows does not mean that it is impossible that there is also a loljudge.
Well, I think the judge is treating the slapfight between Rekieta and his opponent's lawyer with the level of seriousness it deserves, which is none.
 
It shouldn’t be this difficult for a grown man to avoid running his mouth into higher legal bills. Maybe he and Ralph can hit an AA meeting together now that they’ve made up.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: UncleTusky
Back