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.

[SargonF00t]

I also saw a new Hartman Smith (pseudo-cow) video:

I find Hartman Smith quite entertaining when he spergs out about Rekieta.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

You think Nick avoids talking about Hunter Biden because they’re almost the same person and people’s contempt of Hunter Biden annoys him?

 

[Spaded Dave]

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

EDIT: YT clip now available.

It's on their rumble channel clip.

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

His hairline is running away from his nose.

EDIT:

Wait, he is against Discovery because Montagraph didn't provide damages? "But the interesting thing that allegedly is remaining is the idea of damages that would come from the plaintiff. So I'm not sure why the discovery window is relevant to something that we wouldn't get in discovery, but that they should be providing at the onset of the case."

Ignoring that he's ignoring the per se damages the judge mentioned, correct me if I'm misremembering but didn't he go on a tirade during the Vic Lasagna case about how Vic needs discovery to gather the evidence to prove damages? Like, he needed discovery from the conventions, decision makers, etc.

EDIT 2:

"In theory Montagraph could have tons of evidence of how he was damaged by his subscriber count growing and all of that stuff" *smirk and laugh*

Add another point to the hypocrisy. Same exact logic he railed against when Vic started getting longer lines and more fan support after he was defamed.

 

[Strix454]

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

Nick graduated Law School in 2015. He practiced law in a real sense from 2015-2017. When his streaming about law took off in 2018, law become a very occasional hobby and not something he does seriously.
Nick is a kind of a special case though because he has always had large amounts of family money helping him through life.

All of the internet lawyers have different stories. There is a guy named legal mindset who is hiding over in Korea from bill collectors and process servers in the states.

I'm not as familiar with Legal Eagle, but Looking at his resume he graduated from law school in 2008, got hired by a law firm on graduation, worked in two different law firms for around ten years and then set up his own law firm. He was also an "extern" for a federal appeals judge and is admitted to the bar in five states. I can't tell how much actual legal work he does anymore, but he has a resume that says he was a serious person in the law at one time.

 

[Maude Snew]

"No I'm not actually saying it, you're just interpreting it that way."

Stalker child, I did not call you a stalker child molester, these are your delusions again.
Patnick Balldoson at it again. He also seems to be getting fatter.

 

[Local Wordmason]

Nick graduated Law School in 2015. He practiced law in a real sense from 2015-2017. When his streaming about law took off in 2018, law become a very occasional hobby and not something he does seriously.
Nick is a kind of a special case though because he has always had large amounts of family money helping him through life.

All of the internet lawyers have different stories. There is a guy named legal mindset who is hiding over in Korea from bill collectors and process servers in the states.

I'm not as familiar with Legal Eagle, but Looking at his resume he graduated from law school in 2008, got hired by a law firm on graduation, worked in two different law firms for around ten years and then set up his own law firm. He was also an "extern" for a federal appeals judge and is admitted to the bar in five states. I can't tell how much actual legal work he does anymore, but he has a resume that says he was a serious person in the law at one time.

“Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach make a Youtube channel.”

 

[Sewer Rat]

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

if they have an active youtube channel then no, no lawyer can handle cases AND youtube streams, not enough time to do both. Most of them got the diploma or are selling books, I think a couple of "lawtube" lawyers to corpo or bussiness stuff that is much like office work

 

[Clipuoka]

Hey Clip This created a second channel now under "Hey Clip This Too" while in YT jail.

https://www.youtube.com/@HeyClipThis2

Linking both videos for the archives.

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

@Montagraph V. @RekietaLaw: Nick's Motion DENIED, Judge Wants 'Discovery NOW!' [EDITED]

 

[Crashman11]

I told Rekieta 6 months ago in his chat that if he didnt pull his head out of his arse God was gunna kick it, and he laughed at me.

 

[Lady Rackets Ass]

if they have an active youtube channel then no, no lawyer can handle cases AND youtube streams, not enough time to do both. Most of them got the diploma or are selling books, I think a couple of "lawtube" lawyers to corpo or bussiness stuff that is much like office work

I'm pretty sure most of them do both at least to an extent potentially criminal still does stuff, legal vices has a maritime law job, the lawyer you know practices with his dad, DUI Guy, Runkle, etc they may have scaled their practices back somewhat to have time to do both, but all of them are better lawyers than balldo man regardless.

 

[Not Who You Think]

On a MATI livestream at the end of June, Null said Nick won't return his messages, possibly due to Null making fun of Nick's tattoos (of all things) on his last stream. Null has apparently reached out to Nick concerning incorporating a charity that would be an online refuge for websites who are at risk.

Nick has previously claimed to be a supporter of free speech, even going so far as to say his case with Montegraph was him fighting for free speech, and his supporters claiming that Nick's fight was everyone's fight during Nick's GiveSendGo fiasco.

Nick couldn't find time for Null until his case with Montegraph went (further) south, Null does a segment on it, and then Nick directly messages Null.

Ten minutes after the Nick/Monty segment (almost to the second) Null interrupts his own stream to make time for Rekieta's response to the segment. Nick says apologizing isn't an option.

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.

After being ghosted by Nick, Null made impromptu time for Nick during his own livestream in a professional manner without making it intrusive to his audience, while Nick couldn't make time for Null with a far more generous window (and arguably important subject matter).

Good on Null. Shame on Nick.

(edit:spelling)

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Nick graduated Law School in 2015. He practiced law in a real sense from 2015-2017. When his streaming about law took off in 2018, law become a very occasional hobby and not something he does seriously.
Nick is a kind of a special case though because he has always had large amounts of family money helping him through life.

All of the internet lawyers have different stories. There is a guy named legal mindset who is hiding over in Korea from bill collectors and process servers in the states.

I'm not as familiar with Legal Eagle, but Looking at his resume he graduated from law school in 2008, got hired by a law firm on graduation, worked in two different law firms for around ten years and then set up his own law firm. He was also an "extern" for a federal appeals judge and is admitted to the bar in five states. I can't tell how much actual legal work he does anymore, but he has a resume that says he was a serious person in the law at one time.

"In a real sense"

He was a solo low-level courthouse guy for 2 years max, after taking the slow road through law school; no one around to learn from day-to-day, no one to set a standard (clearly), and he sure didn't have a full roster of clients. He's basically never really "been" a lawyer.

(By contrast, for example, Emily D. Baker was a deputy DA in LA for 10 years. It's been awhile since she was practicing in court (2017), but 10 years, especially in that role, is a decent level of experience (and after that she had a law-related business, before her lawtubing took off).)

If Null is even thinking of getting Rekeita involved in setting up or engagement with a nonprofit, I hope he also hires a real lawyer who knows something about it. Tax structures (esp with potential international aspects) aren't good places to fuck around and find out.

 

[Hraf]

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.

He has already spent at least $100,000 on pretrial motions, hoping to get the case dismissed. This has failed, and now he is going to move on to trial, where things will get even more expensive. So yes, at least a couple grand here and there.

 

[Joggin Noggin]

The SLAPP argument failed and it was Marc's idea. The same kind of thing has worked in other cases (Citation not provided). It was a good argument, but the judge just disagreed.

Even if it worked in other cases, likely in other jurisdictions, it's a retarded idea here when there is 6 year old Minnesota SC precedent stating that their state's anti-slapp is a deprivation of a plaintiff's state constitutional right to a jury trial. If this was old and not relied upon precedent, I could potentially understand throwing it out there to see if it sticks, but this was a dumb move.

Minnesota's constitutional provides a categorical without exceptions right to a jury trial in all cases.
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623, 634 (Minn. 2017).
The Minnesota SC stated that their anti-slapp law was unconstitutional because not only does it subplant the jury's role as a fact finder, transferring it to the district court judge, but also imposed a higher burden on the plaintiff than what they would have to meet at trial (clear and convincing for anti-slapp vs preponderance of the evidence for regular tort claims). Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623, 636 (Minn. 2017).

Attempting to apply Colorado's anti-slapp would fail under the Minnesota SC's first reasoning, as it is still subplanting the jury's fact finding role.

It likely wouldn't have any issues under the second reason provided given that Colorado's anti-slapp applies a burden on the plaintiff to show that they have a "reasonable likelihood" to prevail on the claim. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-20-1101(3)(a). Reasonable likelihood isn't defined in Colorado's anti-slapp, but it's been stated by the 1st division of the Colorado Court of Appeals to be synonymous with the reasonable probability standard used throughout Colorado's prelim injunction jurisprudence. Salazar v. Pub. Tr. Inst., 2022 COA 109M, ¶ 23, 522 P.3d 242, 249. Reasonable probability is well defined either, but it's something akin to sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation so long as the balance of hardships tips decidedly in the plaintiff's favor. So essentially the same burden as the preponderance standard, just in the prelim injunction context.

TL;DR: Randazza was asking the 8th District Judge to use a Colorado statute that inevitably would still be directly in line with one of the major reasons that the Minnesota SC ruled their own anti-slapp unconstitutional. It was a waste of time and money

Edit: I haven't read Randazza's initial motion attempting to rationalize the use Colorado's anti-slapp, so maybe he attempts to distinguish this anti-slapp from the one Minnesota's SC found unconstitutional, but it still seems like a fucking stupid idea to me given the recent caselaw

 

[Balldo's Gate]

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

EDIT: YT clip now available.

Seeing the actual video was illustrative. I was confused about Nick's relative lack of seething after the ruling. I get the impression he doesn't actually understand the ruling and in particular the fact that the judge said that Monty's defamation claim constitutes a claim of defamation per se. I might be misunderstanding him, but he sounds like he also may be laboring under the belief that discovery may be limited to plaintiff's damages. As far as I can tell there probably were no real damages, so that would be a very brief and cheap process. I really don't understand where in the ruling he got that belief from, if that is his belief.

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.

Exactly. He appears to be clinging to the fact that Monty cannot prove damages as meaning that the case will eventually be dismissed. This seems to indicate that he either did not notice or does not understand the significance of the judge saying the defamation claim is one of defamation per se.

It might be good content if he figures it out live on air while going through the ruling.

You can outwit the court of public opinion, but not a real court of law. That's irony.

Nick loves the semantic word games but his problem here is that he not only made joking comments in a very specific vein about Montagraph, but the fact that he is in Minnesota and in Minnesota there is very strong language on that subject from the MN Court of Appeals in the Longbehn case:



As a matter of a fact, I looked for any discussion of the case that might have gone on through the search function. I happened upon some commentary about it from 2019:

Incidentally this is far from the only case where someone called someone a pedophile in a case where things they said were found defamatory per se, it's just the one that explicitly says it in those exact words. Usually they just conclude it in passing without even bothering to state it. It's that obvious.

You have to have a very special kind of shit for brains to say something that utterly stupid, that calling you something people have been literally killed for being, is not defamatory and does not tend to cast one into disrepute.

Very relevant today!

 

[Maude Snew]

I haven't read Randazza's initial motion attempting to rationalize the use Colorado's anti-slapp, so maybe he attempts to distinguish this anti-slapp from the one Minnesota's SC found unconstitutional, but it still seems like a fucking stupid idea to me given the recent caselaw

If I'm remembering right the argument was that it would just lead to people forum shopping when they should be suing where the damage occurred.

 

[Procrastinhater]

He has already spent at least $100,000 on pretrial motions, hoping to get the case dismissed. This has failed, and now he is going to move on to trial, where things will get even more expensive. So yes, at least a couple grand here and there.

Pretty sure Randazza bills more than a couple grand an hour.

 

[Sewer Rat]

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

EDIT: YT clip now available.

It's on their rumble channel clip.

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

Kinda sounds like Rekieta resents Jim for showing him Montagraph and starting this mess (not blaming Jim for Rekieta's own retardation)

 

[beautiful person]

Pretty sure Randazza bills more than a couple grand an hour.

According to Null on the latest MATI, Randazza has his own specialized, trademarked font that he uses for all his legal filings. So he's got to charge an arm and a leg in order to justify such bullshit.

God, Rekieta is such a retard. I'd feel bad for the kids, but apparently Nick's parents are in charge of the real money, so they'll be taken care of, regardless. But still. How does a man with five kids, who isn't a literal nigger, act so recklessly?

 

[Joggin Noggin]

I hope this goes to jury trial and Nick has to say how it's unreasonable for someone to think he was actually calling Monty a pedo. That'll be fun