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

[AnOminous]

Rekieta Law, a Minnesota LLC, is still inactive:
https://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/Business/Search

And is despite that, unlike Rekieta Media, a party to the lawsuit.

This is a somewhat eccentric choice since it's a corporation for his essentially defunct law practice, while the media corporation is presumably dedicated to his other activities such as baselessly accusing people of sucking little boys' dicks.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

And is despite that, unlike Rekieta Media, a party to the lawsuit.

This is a somewhat eccentric choice since it's a corporation for his essentially defunct law practice, while the media corporation is presumably dedicated to his other activities such as baselessly accusing people of sucking little boys' dicks.

Wait, why didn’t Nick object that the wrong party is sued?

 

[AnOminous]

Wait, why didn’t Nick object that the wrong party is sued?

That's what I wonder. It would seem to be a necessary party. It would also open up some wiggle room for funky choice of law arguments. Or maybe not. For all I know I've given the matter more thought than Nick. Whatever Internet law talking is, it is not the practice of law, generally speaking.

It just seems odd not to try to invoke the corporate veil in as many ways as possible, considering that's the whole point of even having LLCs.

Not even bothering to pay the annual registration fees for the corporation that actually is being sued is also goofy. It doesn't help him in any argument that the corporation is anything other than a flimsy alter ego that should be disregarded with Nick sucking up the full liability.

 

[mindlessobserver]

He picked the wrong Superchat to display. The below one sounds like a request for retraction to me. Unless we are talking about some turbofaggot lawyer definition relying on legal technicalities. Which I'm sure is what Nick will be relying on.

View attachment 5250370

The more this goes on, the more I sympathize with Monty. Imagine a bunch retards online saying shit about you that you never did. Certainly nobody on this forum has any idea what that must be like.

 

[Swole McPole]

Looks like there's at least one such statute in Minnesota, relating to newspapers:

(...)

"This section shall not apply to any libel imputing unchastity."

I wonder if this is just talking about libels imputing your regular old-fashioned unchastity, or does it also cover unchastity involving melons and the sucking of little boys dicks?

 

[Owlbear]

It's still not a party to the suit. It appears to have been reactivated.

I'm pretty convinced this has nothing to do with the suit. He used Rekieta Media LLC as his side of the Rumble deal, so someone probably told him to keep it active as long as that's going.

Rekieta has had obvious corporate law fuck-ups if he wants to keep the entities separate in court, like announcing his "law" LLC at the beginning of pretty much every video until recently and using the same branding (logo and all) as his law firm. I assume Randazza has an associate who was smart enough to tell him not to run that play despite the fact that Nick was harping on it at the beginning of the lolsuit.

Still, I want him to try.

 

[Captain Manning]

This whole retraction tangent is autistic AF, IMO.

In response to Monty, Nick literally said "sue me if you want you fucking child molesting fucking faggot." His exact words.

Monty did exactly what Nick asked.

Now Nick's dwindling fanbase is saying "Weeeelllll... okay.... but, he should have first sent Nick a formal retraction demand formatted in 12pt Times New Roman font, and..."

Like, really?

A reasonable person should conclude that if somebody doubles down on a lie and dares you to sue them, further retraction demands would be an exercise in futility. Unless somebody here can show that Monty was required to execute some more formal C&D as a precursor to his lawsuit, I'm not sure how any of this helps Nick.

And let's be real here: Nick would likely not have retracted even if Schneider sent him a strongly worded missive on his firm's letterhead. Nick is a stubborn contrarian bastard who can't bear the thought of ever being wrong about anything.

 

[AnOminous]

Now Nick's dwindling fanbase is saying "Weeeelllll... okay.... but, he should have first sent Nick a formal retraction demand formatted in 12pt Times New Roman font, and..."

Like, really?

Well, in Texas, that would actually be statutorily required under the TDMA, and under common law principles, failing to do so would deprive you of the option of seeking punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Even Minnesota has a similar statute (cited a few posts ago by me) specifically for newspapers.

It's one of those best practices things that can get you a better outcome, as silly as it actually looks (like Ty Beard pointing out that his client is not literally a piece of shit but in fact is a human being).

 

[Captain Manning]

Well, in Texas, that would actually be statutorily required under the TDMA, and under common law principles, failing to do so would deprive you of the option of seeking punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Even Minnesota has a similar statute (cited a few posts ago by me) specifically for newspapers.

It's one of those best practices things that can get you a better outcome, as silly as it actually looks (like Ty Beard pointing out that his client is not literally a piece of shit but in fact is a human being).

And Monty's superchats, and Nick's responses to the same, definitely wouldn't satisfy that requirement?

 

[AnOminous]

And Monty's superchats, and Nick's responses to the same, definitely wouldn't satisfy that requirement?

I actually don't know. There isn't a specific statutory requirement for it and any common law principle is open for debate.

Personally, my opinion is that Monty's request for a retraction satisfies any sensible common law rule requiring a request for such, and Nick's unambiguous refusal opens him up to punitive damages.

But hey, I'm not a Minnesota lawyer, much less a Minnesota judge, much less a Minnesota appeals court panel, much less the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Hope Nick enjoys paying for all these fun tiers of jurisprudence for his "right" to make utterly baseless accusations against some random guy of performing fellatio on young children.

 

[Captain Manning]

Personally, my opinion is that Monty's request for a retraction satisfies any sensible common law rule requiring a request for such, and Nick's unambiguously refusal opens him up to punitive damages.

That is my belief as well.

To me, it seems like Nick was on sufficient notice that Monty wanted the videos where Nick slanders him taken down, and Nick not only refused but doubled down. You generally don't say "sue me faggot" unless you have absolutely no attention whatsoever of agreeing to a retraction.

Arguing whether Monty needed to send something even more formal seems silly unless there's a specific written requirement that states otherwise.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

To me, it seems like Nick was on sufficient notice that Monty wanted the videos where Nick slanders him taken down

The way I see it you need to specifically allege the specific videos you want down. “I want all lies removed” shouldn’t be specific enough, especially where the defendant (allegedly) believes that there was no defamation made. However, I will admit that I have found no caselaw on what constitutes as a retraction (in Minnesota) in cases not involving newspapers (which work on their own specific statute), and the only thing I found that Minnesota courts agree that failure to retract can be used to establish actual malice if the statement proves to be false (though that depends on the circumstances, and is for the Jury to decide). See Ventura v. Kyle, 63 F. Supp. 3d 1001 (D. Minn. 2014). This could actually kill one of Nick’s possible defences of Montagraph being a limited purpose public figure, and that defamation would therefore require actual malice.

 

[AnOminous]

This could actually kill one of Nick’s possible defences of Montagraph being a limited purpose public figure, and that defamation would therefore require actual malice.

My personal opinion is that participating in public life at all in any form is not some sort of blank check that you're allowed to be accused of raping children based on nothing.

I do not believe that Chupp Doctrine (that you are a public figure if people show up to support you in court) is actually real law. I believe that is retarded faggot Texan law come up with by a faggot too dumb to know the actual law.

But hey, courts may differ with me on that one as to the "public figure" doctrine.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

My personal opinion is that participating in public life at all in any form is not some sort of blank check that you're allowed to be accused of raping children based on nothing

I don’t think Nick accused him based on nothing. IIRC Nick thinks (or claims in his response) that because Montegraph’s IMDB page (which Nick alleges, based on no evidence that I can find, That Montegraph created himself) for his movie “Little Piggy and the Umbrella Man” features and underage girl and has Montegraph self listed as rapist (presumably the rape happens after the girl dies), therefore Montegraph self identifies as a child rapist, therefore pedophile, therefore sucks off minors. The link here is stretchy at best, but when you make these claims while drunk, maybe it makes sense. Also what he did should get excused because other people are doing it too (literally the thing he was shitting on people for doing to Vic) (I understand that his lawyer has to try to make the best he can, but this really brings a sour taste)

I went back and checked, and I was right:





Also, I was wrong about him never raising issue that the wrong LLC was sued, he just did it in a fucking footnote


I realise my reponse to you was extremely pedantic.

I do not believe that Chupp Doctrine (that you are a public figure if people show up to support you in court) is actually real law

I don’t believe much of anything Chupp did was real law which is why it’s so frustrating that Supreme Court of Texas realized there were big problems but refused to act on them.

 

[AnOminous]

Also, I was wrong about him never raising issue that the wrong LLC was sued, he just did it in a fucking footnote

While footnotes are a nice place for zingers, if you actually intend something to be a primary part of your pleadings, it should be in the main text.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

I think the point he was making in this:
wasn't that California's anti-SLAPP is the same evidentiary standard as Texas, but that the point in common is that it stays discovery.

Okay, you think wrong then. He repeatedly included California and Texas as examples of anti-SLAPP laws he didn't like. YouTube video link

00:03:02:
"I have expressed in the past and I stand by this expression, distaste on how anti-SLAPP laws exist in the world, in the United States specifically. Now, the context I bring that up has been in the past California and Texas. I don't like anti-SLAPPS. Really not a big fan."

00:05:37:
"what you have to do to overcome an anti-SLAPP in California and Texas is provide this level of evidence..."

00:39:36
"I do not like this idea that a plaintiff has an extra evidentiary burden in some states to quote-unquote "prove their case" without the benefit of discovery, because once you file an anti-SLAPP in California and Texas, in most places, discovery is stopped. And that's kind of a problem if you need some of this evidence, to prove their state of mind..."

In other words, he was specifically bringing up California and Texas as states with anti-SLAPP laws he dislikes. The discovery issue was just one area where he specifically made a claim and I wanted to dunk on it. Even if his only problem was with the discovery issue, he still tried to get the case dismissed before discovery, so he should just admit he was trying to use a law he didn't agree with rather than make a fool of himself. It's more amusing if he doesn't admit that, though.

Entirely possible that he was slightly mistaken in that regard.

It's not being "slightly mistaken" LMFAO. He's just too stupid to understand his entire point is wrong.

He doesn't like anti-SLAPP laws including California's but it's totally not the same that he tried to apply an anti-SLAPP law that was based on California's law?

How does this make any sense at all?

That's what I wonder. It would seem to be a necessary party. It would also open up some wiggle room for funky choice of law arguments. Or maybe not. For all I know I've given the matter more thought than Nick. Whatever Internet law talking is, it is not the practice of law, generally speaking.

It just seems odd not to try to invoke the corporate veil in as many ways as possible, considering that's the whole point of even having LLCs.

Not even bothering to pay the annual registration fees for the corporation that actually is being sued is also goofy. It doesn't help him in any argument that the corporation is anything other than a flimsy alter ego that should be disregarded with Nick sucking up the full liability.

This was addressed in the briefs. Randazza did argue that the wrong company had been sued and that Rekieta Law LLC had no connection to Rekieta's streaming business. Schneider argued that in addition to the name, the logo Rekieta used for his law practice was substantially similar to his streaming logo.

The judge did not address this issue in her order. I don't know if the idea was that Monty can conduct discovery on the nature of Rekieta's corporate setup, or if she just missed the dispute over whether Monty had the right company, which was buried in between pages and pages of "we know the MN Supreme Court said anti-SLAPP is unconstitutional, but please apply this anyway".

I don't see why Rekieta Media would be a necessary party when Monty is suing for statements that Rekieta as a person made on camera. He could try suing it, but I don't know why he would.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

“Monty should have repeated all of Nick’s defamatory statements about him in order for his removal requests to count” is some Rekieta-level legal reasoning. There’s no chance Nick would have complied with a cease and desist. He has no one to blame but himself for his current state of being utterly fucked.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't see why Rekieta Media would be a necessary party when Monty is suing for statements that Rekieta as a person made on camera. He could try suing them, but I don't know why he would.

Presumably, Nick would have been acting on behalf of Rekieta Media when falsely accusing Monty of performing fellatio on small children.

These corporate entities are incredibly vaporous, though. Nick is just Nick and should suck up his personal liability. I hope he goes broke and all his children have to end up in some Dickensian nightmare as chimney sweeps.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

“Monty should have repeated all of Nick’s defamatory statements about him in order for his removal requests to count” is some Rekieta-level legal reasoning

He can’t retract a statement (and take down the offending video) if he doesn’t know which video and statement Montagraph is talking about. In the Superchats Montagraph raised Melonfucking as the single defamatory issue, something that wasn’t even defamatory at all.

and all his children have to end up in some Dickensian nightmare as chimney sweeps.

Okay, well that’s a tad much.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Presumably, Nick would have been acting on behalf of Rekieta Media when falsely accusing Monty of performing fellatio on small children.

These corporate entities are incredibly vaporous, though. Nick is just Nick and should suck up his personal liability. I hope he goes broke and all his children have to end up in some Dickensian nightmare as chimney sweeps.

I get that part. I'm pretty sure that if Nick was acting as an agent of Rekieta Media, that would mean that vicarious liablity would attach to the LLC and so Monty could sue Rekieta Media, but not that he has to.

Usually that doesn't matter since the media company has the money anyway and it's a waste of time to just sue the individual, but in this case, because of the nature of the entities, it's not clear what Monty would gain from it other than making the case a lot more complicated in ways that benefit Rekieta.

“Monty should have repeated all of Nick’s defamatory statements about him in order for his removal requests to count” is some Rekieta-level legal reasoning. There’s no chance Nick would have complied with a cease and desist. He has no one to blame but himself for his current state of being utterly fucked.

It's the type of semantic game that Rekieta absolutely fucking loves but I doubt how it would fly with a Kandiyohi County jury. And it seems like it doesn't really matter.