Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.

[Sewer Rat]

After the last year, Nick is most definitely on the same level as Legal Eagle. He's just the non-corporare other side of the coin.

Legal Eagle saw the money, the grift and turn it into more money by being professional, taking the "lawyer" costume and doubling down for more money.
Rekieta saw the money, the grift, got lazy and slowly, but surely more degenerate, his ego was so big that he thought most of his fans were tuning in for him, as a person, and not at all for the content.
Basically Legal Eagle saw this as a well paid job, and Rekieta turned into a Diva

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Nick's theory is that Schneider is working like a "shyster" lawyer who only gets paid if they win the suit. I doubt he's took the case out of any ill will toward Nick initially (though that might have changed considering Nick lashed out repeatedly).

The lying allegation is from Schneider's response to to the Colorado anti-slapp argument. Nick claims that Schneider lied to the court about Montegraph's place of residence, since Schneider initially put down a Colorado address on one of the affidavits. When Randazza tried to use Colorado law to fight, Schneider then told the court that Montegraph actually lives in Illinois. IANAL so I don't understand the seriousness of doing what Schneider did, but I can understand why Nick is pissed about it. By putting the "wrong" address down, he cost Nick a bunch of money for Randazza to follow this thread.

Oh gosh, I forgot about the whole residence thing. So I guess this isn't a new issue of Balldoman calling Schneider liar-pants. Though why would Colorado (or Illinois) law matter in a Minnesota court? Oh, the judge said it didn't matter.

I'll give that it seems a bit squirrely, but it could equally just be sloppy. It also seems like maybe one should back off the LIAR LIAR allegations when there's already an ethics complaint about it ongoing. What a smooth brain Balldoman is.

 

[Weebburner]

lmao nick story is hilarious to me. He was my bridge toward the farm when i found his channel as he was covering lolsuits. He seemed down to earth, modest, cool internet christian daddy vibe. Then the money started rolling in the more "shocking" he got. Getting into internet spat did probably improve his audience engagement and thus more money but some people just cant handle even mild internet notoriety. Doesnt help hes become an alcoholic and then he just latched on the degenerate shit. His fall to lolcowdom has been both hilarious but also a bit sad at the same time. Hope he turns himself around and this is just some midlife crisis shit for him and this suit knocks some senses into him but if not, ill just stay on the sideline and now laugh at him instead of with him.

 

[Strix454]

I honestly wonder why Rekieta is not representing himself in this. Wouldn't that make for a better show, and also wouldn't it make him look better since he's personally taking on Monty? Free speech isn't that complicated, at least not in this case. In fact, it's not even a free speech case since it's defamation per se.

He initially did represent himself in the case and that turned into a disaster.

- He blew off a filing deadline because it was interfering with his christmas.
- He found out that when he was representing himself, he came under more strict professional conduct rules as far as what he said about the case and the opposing attorney. He had to be careful about what he said and he didn't like it.
- When he found out Monty was represented by an actual local attorney, he got a whole lot less interested in representing himself. This law stuff turned out to be alot of work. Work that was taking time away from Nick's drinking, drug consumption and cooming.

The whole Monty lawsuit thing has proven to be terrible content for Nick. He never has any fun with it. He mostly gets angry drunk about the case and then rages on-stream about Monty's attorney rather than Monty.

 

[Sneed S. McSneedensen]

Legal Eagle saw the money, the grift and turn it into more money by being professional, taking the "lawyer" costume and doubling down for more money.
Rekieta saw the money, the grift, got lazy and slowly, but surely more degenerate, his ego was so big that he thought most of his fans were tuning in for him, as a person, and not at all for the content.
Basically Legal Eagle saw this as a well paid job, and Rekieta turned into a Diva

Even though Legal Eagle is a leftist liberal, I slightly respect him more because of his consistently professional appearance.

Both Rekieta and Eagle are lawyers, so they are slimy by default, but Rekieta looks both slimy and smelly.

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

Even though Legal Eagle is a leftist liberal, I slightly respect him more because of his consistently professional appearance.

Both Rekieta and Eagle are lawyers, so they are slimy by default, but Rekieta looks both slimy and smelly.

Legal Eagle is far worse because he's fucking boring. At least Rekieta's life is a train wreck in progress we can gawk at.

 

[Strix454]

Anyone who knows anything about Minnesota law in the thread, there's some stuff in the denial of summary judgement that I don't quite get:

1. The statement that Minnesota had anti-SLAPP legislation but it was deemed unconstitutional. Was the whole concept of such legislation found to be unconstitutional or only parts of the statute? (It seems a bit weird that the law wasn't sent back to the legislature with instructions to fix it but just declared void - is that just the US way of doing things?)

The courts struck down the anti-SLAPP law based around the idea that it denied one side in the case "the right to a jury trial" and put too much power into the hands of the trial judge to make factual decisions about the case before the case goes to trial.
These things can't be fixed by simple changes to the legislation, Its almost impossible based on the court rulings to have an anti-SLAPP law in Minnesota where the anti-SLAPP determination could be made before trial.

1. Regarding the fact that calling someone a pædophile is considered defamation per se: Can this be countered by showing the statement to be true (I'm thinking of cases like the "MAP community" and convicted child molesters here), or is this absolute?

Saying a provable truth is always a near absolute defense against defamation. The first test to determine defamation is that someone has to have made a false statement that could be taken as fact.
per se only comes into play if the statement made is false.

 

[beautiful person]

Nick's theory is that Schneider is working like a "shyster" lawyer who only gets paid if they win the suit.

So Schneider is a shyster... because he's working on contingency (allegedly)? If anything, a shyster would want to get paid regardless of the outcome, and they'd do whatever they can to draw the case out as long as possible and try things they know are going to fail in advance, in order to rack up as many billable hours as possible. If anything, contingency lawyers are the opposite of shysters because they'll want to do everything as efficiently as possible in order to minimize loss risk, and they'll save their efforts for cases they're confident in. Otherwise, they're basically working pro bono.

In fact, if anything, Randazza is the shyster. Bloated costs, willingly goes down failing avenues instead of advising his client against them, makes money regardless of the outcome. It's almost like Nick is projecting.

 

[Sewer Rat]

I wonder if Nick is really going to appeal, I mean, didn't he say "appeals are for losers"?

 

[Heckler1]

He mostly gets angry drunk about the case

In general Nick is not a happy drunk. He usually drinks and then rages at something to some degree, but as he has decended further into cowdom, it has become more apparent he is like this. I would say he has always been pretty quick to lose his shit and rant at things, but now it is enhanced by his lack of personal discipline and poor decision making.

 

[Diamond Homonculus]

pleadthefifth

Honestly that story he was telling about Nick’s oldest daughter and the burrito really gave my stomach a churn.

Um what? Does anyone know about this story I must have missed it.

Also o7 CANAM for not letting even arbor related injuries stop your righteous alogging.

 

[Clipuoka]

HCT/Scamdazza

@Montagraph V. @RekietaLaw : 'It Was Randazza's Idea!'- LOCALS HOT TUB STREAM​

Seems like Rumble is the only clip working right now? Both show up on the channels tho.​

Rumble: https://rumble.com/v2zmksm-montagraph-v-rekieta-law-it-was-randazzas-idea.html​

HCT/Scamdazza's new upload of Judge Fishcer's ruling.

@Montagraph V. @RekietaLaw : 'It Was Randazza's Idea!'​

Twitter Is Cancer is basically ripping Elissa Clips and Hey Clip This but putting clown voices over it. Here's the latest... pretty funny.

Rekieta LOSES to Monty - MOTION DENIED, YOU HUMAN RAT! HA HA HA!​

CONFIRMED:
Hey Clip This is in YouTube Jail. In the beginning of their Rumble video, it states that it was given a strike for the part where Nick calls Monty a child molesting faggot, etc. They edited the part to where basically the entire thing is bleeped out, and the words are more blacked out. The description on their YT Rumble videos.

 

[Kopasea]

Hey Clip This is in YouTube Jail. In the beginning of their Rumble video, it states that it was given a strike for the part where Nick calls Monty a child molesting faggot, etc.

I can't find where Hey Clip This states why it was given a strike. Where did you learn that info from?

 

[JudyGemstone]

HCT/Scamdazza
@Montagraph V. @RekietaLaw : 'It Was Randazza's Idea!'- LOCALS HOT TUB STREAMSeems like Rumble is the only clip working right now? Both show up on the channels tho.Rumble: https://rumble.com/v2zmksm-montagraph-v-rekieta-law-it-was-randazzas-idea.html

WOW..................... Is it just me, or does he look SUPER defeated??? Like he knows he's fucked.

EDIT: YT clip now available.

I can't find where Hey Clip This states why it was given a strike. Where did you learn that info from?

It's on their rumble channel clip.

https://rumble.com/v2ziyf4-montagraph-v.-rekieta-law-nicks-motion-denied-judge-wants-discovery-now-edi.html

 

[macrodegenerate]

I wonder if Nick is really going to appeal, I mean, didn't he say "appeals are for losers"?

I think you are confusing Nick for Andrew Bronca who frequently used to appear on his show before all of this. That was one of his favorite phrases and Nick stole it after he left.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

I wonder if Nick is really going to appeal, I mean, didn't he say "appeals are for losers"?

Agreed, one of Branca's lines, which stung Ty Beard when they were both on a stream with Balldoman (during the Vic appeal). Rackets acted like he agreed, but he may not have been listening.

 

[Tumbo II]

If we had to speculate how much money do with think Nick is going to end up dumping into this whole thing when all is said and done I'm going to go with a couple grand at least.

 

[Strix454]

I watched a clip of the hot tub stream where Nick responds to the denial of his motion to dismiss. The most interesting thing I get from it is how little Nick seems to understand about his own case and the arguments his attorney made to the court.
He complains about things that were directly addressed by the judge in the ruling such as why legally Monty is entitled to discovery. Nick makes a bunch of assumptions that the only matters of fact left in the case are the issue of defining the damages. As if he had won on every other point in the case even though nothing in the judge's ruling would indicate that.

Nick abandoned all his free speech arguments and is now falling back to saying that everything he said was "based off things that have been said about Montigraph for years". He doesn't seem to understand that he wasn't saying that other people have said that Montigraph was a pedo or that he had done specific illegal acts with children, Nick was saying those things as Nick making statements of fact. Nick also doesn't seem to have read where the Judge said that such statements as Nick made "would inspire anger, distrust and negative consequences for the target".

He still doesn't seem as well to understand what per se defamation means and the legal implication of it. Nick still claims, in spite of the law and precedent in Minnesota, that nothing he said was defamitory. He talks about "crossing that bridge at a later time". He doesn't seem to realize that there is no bridge there. His attorneys certainly understood that in the motion to dismiss.

Nick says "No one thinks anything possibly defamed montigraph". Again, Nick might want to read the ruling again. Because the way I read it, the question of having defamed him has been settled. The question remaining is around if he was damaged by the defamation.
Nick also ignores the statement in the ruling that there is a question of material fact in the case. The judge said specifically that the question of Monty being a pedo is a fact question that only a jury can determine. (p. 10 paragraph 1).

As others have said, Nick in the video completely misrepresents the earlier litigation Monty was involved in over pedo accusations. Monty represented himself and was unable to write an acceptable complaint. The case was rejected on that basis. Nick should know this. But either doesn't know it or is deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

Nick also goes after Monty's attorney again for daring to represent Monty. Nick doesn't seem onboard with the whole concept that everyone is entitled to legal representation. Nick further makes what to me are new claims that Scheinder accused him in filings of "conspiring with people, harassment and doxing". The judge somewhat addressed that sort of thing in the ruling by suggesting that both sides would do better in their filings to stay on the issue of defamation rather than presenting stuff that has nothing to do with it.

And of course he backed off nearly everything he has been saying for months about Colorado anti-SLAPP. Now that he lost on that point, it was just a "test" to see if it would work in a Minnesota court. And he didn't lose on that point because of the clear rulings by the state supreme court that anti-SLAPP under the state constitution was unacceptable. He lost because the judge disagreed. Nick also knows there are all sorts of precedents for the anti-SLAPP thing working, but he fails to mention any of them.

I can understand why he plays fast and loose talking about law on the internet. But I would have thought he would have been more focused on the details of his own case. In spite of the ruling going against him, he is basically just on the same script he was all year. Its a frivolous case, I didn't defame him and the judge will dismiss the case for sure after ------. Its like listening to a child.

 

[Local Wordmason]

Nick always played this smug semantic chicken with his defamatory statements and I knew it would bite him in the ass one day.

"No I'm not actually saying it, you're just interpreting it that way. When I said I would send them to the gas chamber I was talking about my yard as in, I wouldn't let them in my house."

You can be a successful lawyer in the court of public opinion, but not a real court of law. That's irony.

 

[TheDarknessGrows]

Legal Eagle saw the money, the grift and turn it into more money by being professional, taking the "lawyer" costume and doubling down for more money.
Rekieta saw the money, the grift, got lazy and slowly, but surely more degenerate, his ego was so big that he thought most of his fans were tuning in for him, as a person, and not at all for the content.
Basically Legal Eagle saw this as a well paid job, and Rekieta turned into a Diva

Do either Legal Eagle or Nick (or any Internet lawyers) even practice law outside of a court appearance from a decade ago?