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

[TheClappening]

Well yeah, obviously, if you're Elon Musk, calling somebody "pedo guy" isn't per se defamatory.

I know you're shitposting, but it was considered per se defamatory enough to pass a 12.b.6 motion to dismiss, which is the closest thing the federal courts have to an anti-SLAPP.

Elon won probably because the jury realized he was a wierdo who didn't mean anything as a statement of fact.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Doesn't sound like "I will fuck you in the ass David Schneider" is going to result in anything but David Schneider fucking Nick in the ass.

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.

Nick used to make fun of him back in 2019 for being an "academic lawyer" who never practices, apparently because he would occasional lecture at a law school or something. Pretty ironic given what we know now about Nick's own legal practice and courtroom appearances.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I know you're shitposting, but it was considered per se defamatory enough to pass a 12.b.6 motion to dismiss, which is the closest thing the federal courts have to an anti-SLAPP.

Elon won probably because the jury realized he was a wierdo who didn't mean anything as a statement of fact.

Oh sure. Yeah. As a perfectly reasonable juror I definitely find no statements of fact in anything Elon Musk says.

"[Unsworth] is an old, single white guy from England who’s been traveling to or living in Thailand for 30 to 40 years, mostly Pattaya Beach, until moving to Chiang Rai for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time. There’s only one reason people go to Pattaya Beach. It isn’t where you’d go for caves, but it is where you’d go for something else. Chiang Rai is renowned for child sex-trafficking."

Who could even read that and think that any of it sounds like provable or disprovable facts?

 

[AnOminous]

Who could even read that and think that any of it sounds like provable or disprovable facts?

That's why it got past a motion to dismiss. You can read the entire case if you like (you probably don't) but the jury instructions were pretty simple.

There's a lot more to it than this, but here's a sample:


Those are the three statements that were at issue by the time of the trial, not for whatever reason the one you quoted.

Musk doesn't just have to have made the statements of fact, but they have to have been taken as such by the audience.

Since the jury questionnaire just answers the first question, as to liability, in the negative, we don't really know which of the five they based this on, but I'd bet 3. The audience didn't take it as an actual fact, but as, for instance, the ravings of a lunatic.

That's why the case is relevant to this one.

 

[Kosher Salt]

There's a lot more to it than this, but here's a sample:


Those are the three statements that were at issue by the time of the trial, not for whatever reason the one you quoted.

So were statements like the ones that I mentioned just not included in the lawsuit to begin with (dumb) or were they dismissed out before they got to the jury (in which case they didn't get past the motion to dismiss)?

 

[AnOminous]

So were statements like the ones that I mentioned just not included in the lawsuit to begin with (dumb) or were they dismissed out before they got to the jury (in which case they didn't get past the motion to dismiss)?

The lawsuit was mainly about his tweets. That was an email he sent to Buzzfeed, which Buzzfeed published. Maybe it would have muddied the waters. I'm not sure why it wasn't in the final jury instructions. I don't honestly think much of how Lin Wood handled the case, but it might have simply been that the resources weren't there to throw that in as well and have a whole new set of arguments as to whether it was Musk or Buzzfeed responsible for the majority of the harm to Unsworth, since Buzzfeed would probably have ended up being added as a necessary party.

I do think Unsworth at least won a moral victory insofar as this case more or less proved that these statements were utterly baseless. I seriously think there should have been a finding of fact to that effect, if not an actual verdict, even for a nominal amount, i.e. Musk defamed him but he wasn't actually harmed because nobody believed this blithering nutcase.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I haven’t been keeping up to date with this. I saw when Nick’s motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgement was denied, but now I see that the court says the case is closed despite there being no order granting relief to the Plaintiff. Can someone fill me in? Did they settle? Thanks.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

I haven’t been keeping up to date with this. I saw when Nick’s motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgement was denied, but now I see that the court says the case is closed despite there being no order granting relief to the Plaintiff. Can someone fill me in? Did they settle? Thanks.

The case has shown up that way since the day the judge's order denying the motion appeared online. I can only guess it's some kind of error. At the time I saw that the case status was "closed" you could also see that there was a scheduling conference still set for a future date.

 

[talk talk talk]

I haven’t been keeping up to date with this. I saw when Nick’s motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgement was denied, but now I see that the court says the case is closed despite there being no order granting relief to the Plaintiff. Can someone fill me in? Did they settle? Thanks.
View attachment 5219252

The judge fucked up.

She put, "Let judgment be entered accordingly," at the end of the order when there wasn't a judgment. The court admin processing it just went with what was written and entered it as a judgment. I've seen this happen before.

I noticed it on MCRO. Eventually counsel will notice it and it will quietly get fixed.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

The audience didn't take it as an actual fact, but as, for instance, the ravings of a lunatic

Yeah, but Musk is kinda of a shitposter on twitter and you could possibly see that the statement isn't meant seriously. In stark contrast to Nick's "On the wall" comment.

I'm waiting for the judgement of exactly of $1 against Nick plus fees.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Hearing in 10 minutes. Per my understanding, Public is not allowed to listen in

Edit: started 5 min ago as of now

 

[Useful_Mistake]

 

[Null]

>Trial February 2025
i can't imagine sitting down in court on some shit like this and being told that you're going to be dealing with it until at least February 2025

 

[Botchy Galoop]

By 2025, the average shelf-life of a YouTuber will have long expired. This lawtube gig won't pay forever.
At what point will Nick settle? The man is not known for his patience, perseverance or focus.
Then again, Montagraph has not looked real healthy for a while now...

 

[Useful_Mistake]

At what point will Nick settle?

They agreed to try that on October 30th, 2024

Anyway, more updates:
A new conference has been set for two months from now, and there is a new (documentless) docket entry (likely in reference to the conference):

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

God I hope some funny shit comes out of the depositions.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Oh, btw, something funny. Nick is accused of fucking RICO operations and “commission of hate crimes” in the discovery plan

 

[Maude Snew]

Oh, btw, something funny. Nick is accused of fucking RICO operations and “commission of hate crimes” in the discovery plan
View attachment 5245093

Why not accuse him of dragon rustling and space bestiality while you're at it. Treat yourself Monty. What a shit show.

 

[Botchy Galoop]

Oh, btw, something funny. Nick is accused of fucking RICO operations and “commission of hate crimes” in the discovery plan
View attachment 5245093

IT'S NOT RICO! IT'S NEVER RICO!!

https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

Why not accuse him of dragon rustling and space bestiality while you're at it. Treat yourself Monty. What a shit show.

Yes please, fling shit at each other like monkeys.