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.
Kopasea said:
Motion Denied
Click to expand...

- The case can't be dismissed now because calling monty a pedo is per se defamation in minnesota.
- Colorado law doesn't apply because of the court ruling that declared Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional. Nick's side helped improve the argument not applying colorado law by saying that anti-SLAPP would be no different than a summary judgement in their favor.
- The Judge doesn't think much of Monty's overall case so far. Especially the arguments made in terms of the damages he has suffered.
- The judge made some comments in the papers about Monty and his film which were not friendly or helpful to his case. Specifically I think stating that the person in the film was a minor and that Monty was a rapist in the film.
- IMO, the judge went after the filings of both sides as being terrible. Both too long and too much off the point of defamation and defamation law.
- The judge made it really clear that she would be willing to reconsider an end to the case if Monty's side doesn't improve its argument on damages suffered and (maybe) Nick's intent.

The case will survive through discovery IMO. But Monty's side is going to have to do a whole lot to get the case to survive past that. The way I read it, the judge is telling them that the case will not survive unless they improve their arguments. In particular on damages and motives.

The problem for Nick is everything that Nick has said about the case already. If Monty's attorney uses that material in the right ways, Nick is in a whole lot of trouble as far as showing his motives.

The ruling shows exactly what Nick has to do and what he needs to do in court to get an eventual dismissal. But those things were obvious at the start of the case and Nick didn't do them.

Nick could appeal. But I personally don't see I good argument to get around the judge on the application of colorado law. I guess one could also attempt to re-litigate "pedo as per se defamation" in the minnesota courts. But that seems unlikely to be successful either.

A settlement at this point is probably Nick's best and most cost-effective option. It would be in his personal and financial interest to avoid discovery.

He would also benefit from hiring a more cost-effective and defamation law focused attorney.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Winner
Reactions: goodbudweiser, Bush did USS Maine, Associate Rick and 10 others
Strix454 said:
A settlement at this point is probably Nick's best and most cost-effective option. It would be in his personal and financial interest to avoid discovery.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree, and am 95% sure Rackets won't settle.

I really hope the discovery becomes public, on both sides.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: not william stenchever, Neetorino, Associate Rick and 6 others
In case there's any confusion, even just the ONE time calling him a pedophile and saying he sucked little boy cock (as seen in video) was enough for Montagraph to sue him. But hey......... Nick knows the law!
 
Here is a hubris centric statement that caused hundred of thousand of dollars in cost due to ego.
Screenshot 2023-07-11 211853.png


and here is the result so far.
Screenshot 2023-07-11 212006.png

Screenshot 2023-07-11 212734.png

Screenshot 2023-07-11 214025.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bush did USS Maine, 6thRanger, Captain Manning and 4 others
Dixieland Buckaroo said:
I 100% agree, and am 95% sure Rackets won't settle.

I really hope the discovery becomes public, on both sides.
Click to expand...
Imagine trying to settle with a loon like Monty.

She should have dumped Monty's other claims, but it's going to be clear he hasn't suffered any distress or damages.
 
Strix454 said:
Nick must be really scared now. All the videos that document what he said about Monty seem to be getting flagged and taken down one by one tonight in the aftermath of losing the motion.
Click to expand...
Here is one such video, from Hey Clip This! on YouTube, which seems to be a quick overview of events:
 
  • Like
Reactions: koos koets, John Andrews Stan and Fat Gay Riker
AnOminous said:
Who could have predicted that calling some dude a child molester based on literally nothing would be found to be defamatory per se.
Click to expand...

Strix454 said:
- The case can't be dismissed now because calling monty a pedo is per se defamation in minnesota.
- Colorado law doesn't apply because of the court ruling that declared Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional. Nick's side helped improve the argument not applying colorado law by saying that anti-SLAPP would be no different than a summary judgement in their favor.
- The Judge doesn't think much of Monty's overall case so far. Especially the arguments made in terms of the damages he has suffered.
- The judge made some comments in the papers about Monty and his film which were not friendly or helpful to his case. Specifically I think stating that the person in the film was a minor and that Monty was a rapist in the film.
- IMO, the judge went after the filings of both sides as being terrible. Both too long and too much off the point of defamation and defamation law.
- The judge made it really clear that she would be willing to reconsider an end to the case if Monty's side doesn't improve its argument on damages suffered and (maybe) Nick's intent.

The case will survive through discovery IMO. But Monty's side is going to have to do a whole lot to get the case to survive past that. The way I read it, the judge is telling them that the case will not survive unless they improve their arguments. In particular on damages and motives.

The problem for Nick is everything that Nick has said about the case already. If Monty's attorney uses that material in the right ways, Nick is in a whole lot of trouble as far as showing his motives.

The ruling shows exactly what Nick has to do and what he needs to do in court to get an eventual dismissal. But those things were obvious at the start of the case and Nick didn't do them.

Nick could appeal. But I personally don't see I good argument to get around the judge on the application of colorado law. I guess one could also attempt to re-litigate "pedo as per se defamation" in the minnesota courts. But that seems unlikely to be successful either.

A settlement at this point is probably Nick's best and most cost-effective option. It would be in his personal and financial interest to avoid discovery.

He would also benefit from hiring a more cost-effective and defamation law focused attorney.
Click to expand...

AnOminous said:
Monty's reputation is as a complete and utter retard. But I think even tard rep can be damaged by being called a diddler.
Click to expand...
I see and hear shades and tones from the Vic case...

Who would have thunk that calling someone a paedo would be damaging? Even crooks HATES kid-touchers!

I hope the lawyering (as it seems it might be from the judge's response to the 'record' submitted and motion practice) is as hilarious as the Vic man was... I see all the indicators of a sequel...
prolapsed_cranium said:
Imagine trying to settle with a loon like Monty.

She should have dumped Monty's other claims, but it's going to be clear he hasn't suffered any distress or damages.
Click to expand...
I disagree... She is keeping the claims for defamation with the paedo allegations, but she has an issue with the emotional distress claims. It is very hard (from what I am told) to get awarded emotional distress because it has to be something very cruel and unhinged to elevate the trauma to a sanctionable level.

Think killing your kids in front of you, bad.

I am sure Monty will bring in a therapist if this goes to trial... I am sure David told him to start seeing a headshrinker early on in the case to prove out the distress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Manning and John Andrews Stan
Dixieland Buckaroo said:
All Monte needs is one crooked shrink to say, "Yeah, he's fucked up because the mean Balldoman called him names." And if the Depp trial should have shown Rackets anything, it's that shrinks are crooked AF.
Click to expand...
Those guys aren't free. I dont see Schneider fronting the costs of depos and for a quack
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Kulee Baba
Strix454 said:
Nick must be really scared now. All the videos that document what he said about Monty seem to be getting flagged and taken down one by one tonight in the aftermath of losing the motion.
Click to expand...

Presumably, he's attempting to mitigate any damages. Now that he's on notice that the court regards what he said as 'defamatory per se', by leaving those defamatory statements out there for everyone to see, he'd just be digging his hole deeper and deeper.

He's finally figured out that he's already lost this one. Lets just try and limit how much it's going to cost us.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Catgirl Tyranid
prolapsed_cranium said:
Those guys aren't free. I dont see Schneider fronting the costs of depos and for a quack
Click to expand...
Not a lawyer or anything but wouldn't it be a total waste of time anyways to put effort into the emotional distress claims when you have the defamation per se to fall back on. Surely it's not worth the squeeze.
 
Catgirl Tyranid said:
If Nick drops Randazza for local council, then you're right. Otherwise, he hasn't learned a fucking thing. Let the retarded shit flinging continue.
Click to expand...
At a minimum I would think that his local counsel would take a more active part in writing filings if they're mainly pertaining to Minnesota state issues, even if Randazza's putting his name on them too.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Catgirl Tyranid
Catgirl Tyranid said:
If Nick drops Randazza for local council, then you're right. Otherwise, he hasn't learned a fucking thing. Let the retarded shit flinging continue.
Click to expand...
Kosher Salt said:
At a minimum I would think that his local counsel would take a more active part in writing filings if they're mainly pertaining to Minnesota state issues, even if Randazza's putting his name on them too.
Click to expand...
From the Rekieta thread (clip available in quoted post):

Not Who You Think said:
Null then proceeds with the show until he reaches the end of his planned content and reads out another message he received from Nick. Nick clarifies that Randazza is still his lawyer.
Click to expand...

In fairness, based on my reading of Nick's recent hot tub stream, he might be under the impression that the judge intends discovery to be limited to the narrow issue of damages and still may not be expecting a full discovery process ahead of an eventual trial.

We will see what happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fat Gay Riker and Strix454
im5!XxhO said:
Not a lawyer or anything but wouldn't it be a total waste of time anyways to put effort into the emotional distress claims when you have the defamation per se to fall back on. Surely it's not worth the squeeze.
Click to expand...
If the cop, who had a job and reputation in the community, only got $750 from a per se claim Monty doesn't stand to gain that much.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: talk talk talk and im5!XxhO
prolapsed_cranium said:
If the cop, who had a job and reputation in the community, only got $750 from a per se claim Monty doesn't stand to gain that much.
Click to expand...
But he will crow and strut like the cock of the yard if he wins. That much internet clout and pwnage would make Monty's small, miserable life.

Nick will slink around and be forever labelled a defamer, branded with the mark of Cain. It will give people an extra avenue of attack besides 'balldo cuck' to browbeat him.

Monty's enjoyment of financial gain will be incidental to winning the case.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Captain Manning, Marvin, John Andrews Stan and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back