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.
From the Rekieta thread (clip available in quoted post):
Of course, Randazza's still his lawyer. I'm just saying, if he's smart, he'll have cheaper lawyers do most of the work, and it'll have Randazza's signature on it, and we'd really never know the difference unless someone decides to tell us. I know, I know, go ahead and give me rainbows, he's probably not smart enough to do that.
 
Nick has really fucked up, this is basacially a no win situation. Fire everyone, hire the best litigation firm in the twin cities and settle it with a confedental cash payout and a public statement that monty is a good boy and you were misled by the cyber trolls.

If Nick hadn't transformed his public image into raged out coomer degenerate basacially simultaneously with this case he might have been able to grift it big and sell the story of "I was making a fair comment on Monty, and even if his movie isn't really a pedophile snuff film it isn't my fault he handled the initial release so poorly everyone was telling me it was", if not the jury the Internet / his fans would have likely bought into that. Instead he decided to go holler at or about every person even tangentially involved and I-couldn't-even-guess-at-the-number-down on his original statements.

The copeing and sneeding about the order is pathetic. It sounds like Nick's gonna file a bunch of motions to limit discovery because he doesn't understand how litigation works.
 
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.
If he gets even nominal damages, it could conceivably trigger fee-shifting so at least Schneider gets paid. If it gets more than nominal damages he's probably also entitled to punitive damages of some multiple of the actual damages, depending on Minnesota's rules on that. In any event Nick's burn rate goes up substantially now.

Now we go from some motion practice to discovery, trial prep, case management conference, probably more motion practice, etc.

Even if he "wins" he'll end up out four or five Mustangs.
But Rackets will be out something like $100,000.
Didn't he say he was already out something like $75K a couple months ago? And that's just for a Hail Mary MtD making an arcane choice-of-law argument.
 
Last edited:
His explanation was that they communicate in an app, and maybe there was an update to it, or it glitched and it did not look like Nick had read his message.

He claims he has since responded.
Guessing Signal or Telegram, but whatever app it is, they all follow the same general setup these days. Yeah, it's easy to swipe or ignore a thing and forget about it. Just goes to show how self-centered Nick is. Also sus if he historically was good about getting back to Null, and now suddenly isn't.
Didn't he say he was already out something like $75K a couple months ago? And that's just for a Hail Mary MtD making an arcane choice-of-law argument.
My recollection is he said he had already spent more than his GSG goal, which was at $50k. Not a lot has happened since the hearing, as they were waiting for the judge's ruling, so I would hope Randazza wasn't billing for too much in the interim. Or maybe he billed Balldoman for a new font, IDC. Certainly things will get much more expensive, and they will get expensive quite quickly.
 
My recollection is he said he had already spent more than his GSG goal, which was at $50k.

I'm certain that he's explicitly said he's spent over $75k. I seem to recall that he's also implied that he's spent closer to $100k. While I can't find the actual clip, he said it at around the time he was defending his decision to start a GSG when he was coming under huge criticism with people saying he's rich and earning a million a year and he should fund his own damn law suit.

Edit: Checking back in the thread, people say that they recall having heard him say he'd spent over $50k, and also that he'd spent 'close to six figures' but without naming an actual number. Presumably that's where the idea of $75k+ came from?
 
Last edited:
I'm certain that he's explicitly said he's spent over $75k. I seem to recall that he's also implied that he's spent closer to $100k. While I can't find the actual clip, he said it at around the time he was defending his decision to start a GSG when he was coming under huge criticism with people saying he's rich and earning a million a year and he should fund his own damn law suit.

Edit: Checking back in the thread, people say that they recall having heard him say he'd spent over $50k, and also that he'd spent 'close to six figures' but without naming an actual number. Presumably that's where the idea of $75k+ came from?
Whatever the amount, Monte is only asking for $50k, and probably would have settled for less and a public apology. Talk about shitting money away, this will make the Balldomobile look like a smart purchase.
 
I'm certain that he's explicitly said he's spent over $75k. I seem to recall that he's also implied that he's spent closer to $100k. While I can't find the actual clip, he said it at around the time he was defending his decision to start a GSG when he was coming under huge criticism with people saying he's rich and earning a million a year and he should fund his own damn law suit.

Edit: Checking back in the thread, people say that they recall having heard him say he'd spent over $50k, and also that he'd spent 'close to six figures' but without naming an actual number. Presumably that's where the idea of $75k+ came from?
On a LOCALS stream he coped about his GFM not doifh well, and said he had spent more than the original goal and was close to 6 fiigures. That is why the 5k g(r)ift was not out. He said he was close to 6 figures and might go over if his MTD was denied.
 
On a LOCALS stream he coped about his GFM not doifh well, and said he had spent more than the original goal and was close to 6 fiigures. That is why the 5k g(r)ift was not out. He said he was close to 6 figures and might go over if his MTD was denied.
Good. Hope it goes to seven figures. And some of the other people he has defamed come forward and sue him. To quote a favorite cow. Take him down to the ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Andrews Stan
Was watching some clips on Faran's backup channel after her strike and came across either a retconning troll or Monty's #1 fan.


Screenshot_20230714-031929_Twitch.jpg


The Hey Clip This Too backup channel was clipping this Twitter lawyer I've never heard of doing a long review of Nick's Motion to Dismiss denial.



Screenshot_20230714-031618_YouTube.jpg


This is a screenshot from The Questionable Authority stream that was clipped on the Hey Clip This too YT backup.

Screenshot of comment from "mightybuffoon" in the clip channel comments from Monty's #1 fan of 16 years.

20230714_032141.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Kopasea
Is the man with the bad Linin cosplay Mike Dunford? I've only ever seen his stuff in writing before, and it is usually much more humorless and retarded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: break these cuffs
Was watching some of Kurt's stream with guest Andrea Burkhart reviewing the SCOTUS arguments re: threats.


(Timestamp roughly 1hour, 50min, can't seem to imbed timestamp because stream is still live)

More specifically, the SCOTUS arguments are discussing the legal argument as to when someone perceives a threat to their safety but the accused states "they were just joking".

Burkhart explicitly stated about half-way in, with no direct reference to Rekieta, that calling someone a "pedophile" as defamation can't be qualified as a legal defense that "it's just my opinion".

No specific reference to Rackets, but that certainly seems like a specific shot across Nick's bow re: which camp she falls in. This is also accompanying Kurt's comments on livestream earlier in the week re: Nick's hypocrisy in using a legal strategy of out-of-state anti-SLAPP arguments while personally calling similar strategies unconstitutional.

I believe Uncivil's stream is still live.

Apologies, strictly mobile user newfag without clipping/video archive capabilities.
 
Last edited:
Burkhart explicitly stated about half-way in, with no direct reference to Rekieta, that calling someone a "pedophile" as defamation can't be qualified as a legal defense that "it's just my opinion".

No specific reference to Rackets,
She may have been referring to the Elon Musk calling the ... sub guy? Or divers? ... a pedo. (Which Elon somehow won.)

Andrea doesn't seem that tuned in to the drama as some of the others are. I may just be optimistic here too though. But maybe it came up when she was on Nick's show recently, I didn't watch it.
 
Sorry for the doublepost, timed out on editing.

Stream appears to be over.

Andrea Burkhart's unsolicited pedo defamation commentary starts at 1:48:11.


Paraphrased.
And the other thing this reminds me of is in the defamation context, you don't get to be like "That guy is a pedo" but then be like "That's just my opinion".
You saying it doesn't make it the case, you know. If you are making an assertion of fact, it's not your opinion here. Your little disclaimer here doesn't give you any legal protection. You did the thing, now you pay the consequences.
 
Last edited:
I think being a 50 year old man who steams Minecraft and is a proud "Army husband" is a little too on the nose for any troll. The autism is real.

View attachment 5211119

Weeb Wars lolyer Akiva Cohenbergsteinfeldman gets a retweeted shoutout from him as well. Time is a flat circle.

My OG post likely wasn't clear.

The Army lawyer husband Twitch streamer and the 16 year Monty supporter are two different people.

The Monty supporter "mightybuffoon" left their Montagraph guarding comment on not-Faran's backup channel clip OF the Twitch nerd lawyer commenting on Rekieta.

I included the screenshot of the Army nerd lawyer's Twitch bio because not-Faran clipped him multiple times without providing any identifying details in the clip description other than a Twitch link.
 
My OG post likely wasn't clear.

The Army lawyer husband Twitch streamer and the 16 year Monty supporter are two different people.

The Monty supporter "mightybuffoon" left their Montagraph guarding comment on not-Faran's backup channel clip OF the Twitch nerd lawyer commenting on Rekieta.

I included the screenshot of the Army nerd lawyer's Twitch bio because not-Faran clipped him multiple times without providing any identifying details in the clip description other than a Twitch link.
A happy misunderstanding since you've identified more potential within the lawtuber sphere.
 
The issue for Rackets is the pedophile accusation. That's a statutory charge. I hope all that money he is dumping on Randazza is going towards getting that particular jury question tossed out. If this actually goes to trial and a Jury is asked "Did Rekieta Call Monty a Pedophile?" "Was this Statement false and did Rekieta know it was false when he said it?"

If they answer yes to both those things rekieta is fucked in the ass with no lube. And not in the fun way like at hedonism 2.
 
Was watching some clips on Faran's backup channel after her strike and came across either a retconning troll or Monty's #1 fan.


View attachment 5210353

The Hey Clip This Too backup channel was clipping this Twitter lawyer I've never heard of doing a long review of Nick's Motion to Dismiss denial.



View attachment 5210355

This is a screenshot from The Questionable Authority stream that was clipped on the Hey Clip This too YT backup.

Screenshot of comment from "mightybuffoon" in the clip channel comments from Monty's #1 fan of 16 years.

View attachment 5210362
Quest Authority/Mike Dunford is a dude from the Vic Mignogna saga. He disagreed with Nick on basically everything in that story arc, and, because Ty Beard tripped on his shoelaces at the one yard line, was proven right. Imagine giving a cuck like Dumbford a win.

Speaking of Vic, it still causes intellectual whiplash for me that Nick spent two years defending (in the online sense) a guy who was accused of all kinds of sexual impropriety, up to and including being a pedo. While there's far more evidence that Monty might want to touch kids compared to Vic, you'd think Nick would remember how much damage those accusations can cause a person and how much he spoke out against those kinds of accusations.

She may have been referring to the Elon Musk calling the ... sub guy? Or divers? ... a pedo. (Which Elon somehow won.)
@AnOminous had a good idea on why in the Vic thread.
 
Back