Nick claims that Monty has never asked for a retraction. That's why Nick hasn't retracted.
In my opinion Nick threw that out as an excuse. I think Nick understands that this has gotten way past the point where most people would consider some sort of settlement even if they thought they were totally in the right. He appeared pretty defensive about the idea of a settlement.
In the same stream last night, he said "there is no defamation of Montagraph. I don't believe anything I've said was false."
Anyone with more knowledge of the case, is this true?
It's impossible to know for sure since there's no way of verifying what either Monty or Schneider have sent to Nick, if anything.
However, I don't have any reason to doubt it.
While we now have recent examples of three people (Null, Sean, Spectre) who have made corrections or clarifications after receiving requests from Montagraph, as far as I'm aware, none of them had made statements like this:
Rekieta has since made clear he has no intention of settling. Why would Schneider waste time preparing a settlement offer? If NIck decides to change his position, he can come to them.
A simple case is something along the lines of "your tree fell on house and you don't want to pay." Compared to the cases we follow here, this one is simple, but it's more complicated than >90% of actual civil cases.
I'm pretty sure 25 months from complaint to trial would be more in line with the top 1% of civil cases, not 10%.
Not to say this is a particularly trivial case, especially when both sides appear content to make it as complex as possible (months were spent on one side trying to apply an anti-SLAPP law in a state where anti-SLAPP was held to be unconstitutional) but does 25 months seem wild.
