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

[waffle]

Also, trial in 2025 is fast. 2 years start to finish is practically the "rocket docket" for a case with such complex legal issues and parties who like arcane arguments. Randazza is probably hoping to run this longer.

I'd agree if the scheduling order didn't include a year of sitting around with everyone's thumbs up their asses after dispositve motions are due. It's usually 120 days before trial here, and that's standard AFIK. Seems to me like the judge wanted to rocket docket it, but randsza had shit availability so she planns on cutting it way down on the motions.

I don't think the judge likes the case very much. I'll call my shot and say that unless something huge comes out in discovery, the trial is more-or-less is Monty owed damages for Nick's per se defamation, or did the tone and tennor of Nick's comments make them not to be taken as a statement of fact.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

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

One could argue that unlike a simple message that would get lost in the morass, the Superchat was acknowledged and Monty went out of his way to pay for it

 

[Kosher Salt]

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?

I mean, it only really became significant because Schneider claimed in the court filings that Nick had refused to retract the statements they're suing over, and Nick has claimed that he never received any request for a retraction to begin with. Granted I'd say there's roughly a zero percent chance that he'd have retracted anything even if they did, but they're the ones saying that they requested it.

Unless they sent Nick something that we haven't seen (and that he hasn't admitted to seeing either), I don't think those superchats were sufficient to put him on notice for specifically which statements Monty thought was defamatory, and they weren't actually requesting him to retract anything, they were just requesting that he cease and demanding that he delete any videos in which he's ever defamed Steve. A video silently just disappearing off YouTube isn't what I'd call a retraction, because it could be caused by any number of different things, and nobody's going to fucking notice or know what happened to it unless he mentions that it's gone and says why.

 

[noneya]

“Little Piggy and the Umbrella Man” features and underage girl

Has it been clarified if part of the plot was that the girl was underage? Because iirc the actress wasn’t a minor at the time it was filmed

 

[Captain Manning]

I don’t think Nick accused him based on nothing.

He probably accused him based on a combination of rumors that have been circulating around Monty, as well as a copious amount of alcohol (and possibly drugs).

But here's the question: Was that a smart move to say what he said, with the certainty he did, based on just those things?

I think the question is rhetorical. He accused Monty based on nothing of actual substance. Nothing that has been proven. There was no "probably" or weasel words in Nick's invective either.

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)

Yeah, no shit. I don't understand how anybody who participated in Weeb Wars can conclude anything other than Nick is a hypocritical dumbass now.

He espoused all that righteous indignation during the Vic case, but he should get a pass to do the same thing to Monty because... why? He's Nick Rekieta? He can fuck off with that shit.

Unless they sent Nick something that we haven't seen (and that he hasn't admitted to seeing either)

Assuming Monty's superchats aren't sufficient, Monty has sent retraction requests to Null, Sean, and Spectre. A website admin, a lawyer, and a dishonest idiot, respectively. So I would say there's a good chance Nick might have gotten something more specific we haven't seen and Nick isn't sharing. Nick has little credibility anymore, so his word means exactly jack shit in my book.

Out of those three retraction requests, the way Null handled his should give Nick the greatest pause. Null isn't generally known for deleting stuff from KF on request. And yet, he saw the wisdom of not accusing somebody of pedophilia or child molestation without evidence, and concedes KF had no such evidence on hand. If it existed, it probably would be on KF too. Too bad Nick isn't as smart as Null.

Instead of focusing all all these periphery issues that mask the bigger issue, I'd really like to see somebody taking Nick's side to explain how he's going to get around the defamation per se. Are they banking on an "October Surprise" where it is revealed out that Monty raped 50 kids? Truth is an absolute defense to defamation... so where is it?

No matter which way this lawsuit goes, what Nick said and did doesn't seem very defensible. IDGAF that it was directed towards Quest specifically. I'm on Null's side that nobody deserves to be called a pedo unless they actually are one. I'll grant that much even to a weirdo who fucked a watermelon.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

I would say there's a good chance Nick might have gotten something more specific we haven't seen and Nick isn't sharing. Nick has little credibility anymore, so his word means exactly jack shit in my book.

With his habit of not replying to people and seemingly missing messages, I wouldn’t be surprised if Nick received a retraction request but either didn’t see it or opened it while wasted and promptly forgot about it.

 

[Spaded Dave]

Unless they sent Nick something that we haven't seen (and that he hasn't admitted to seeing either), I don't think those superchats were sufficient to put him on notice for specifically which statements Monty thought was defamatory, and they weren't actually requesting him to retract anything

The reason people are treating this line of logic as retarded faggotry is because it's retarded faggotry. We all grant that there MIGHT be some legal technicality as to what a "retraction request" is but nobody has been able to really pinpoint anything other than newspaper rules. So speaking from a position of basic common sense reality...

---

Rekieta: "Monty you're a pedophile. You've sucked little boy cocks. You fucked a watermelon. You made a snuff film."
Monty: "Your videos are slanderous. I never did ANY of the things you've accused me of."
You/Rekieta: "Yeah but what SPECIFICALLY are you referring to? I don't know what you could possibly be referencing. Tee Hee."
Non-Pedants: "We know what he's fucking talking about"

---

Monty: "How about A FORMAL Apology"
You/Rekieta: "Yeah but he didn't actually request him to retract anything, he said apology not retraction. Tee Hee."
Non-Pedants: "We know what he fucking meant"

---

You have to actually put in effort to come across this retarded, Kosher. We all know what's going on and pretending we don't is just embarrassing.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Has it been clarified if part of the plot was that the girl was underage? Because iirc the actress wasn’t a minor at the time it was filmed

It was never explicitly stated, but the public impression was that she was underage, in part because of Monty's other creepy videos, like the one in which he re-enacted "2 Girls 1 Cup" with a couple of Barbie dolls.

With his habit of not replying to people and seemingly missing messages, I wouldn’t be surprised if Nick received a retraction request but either didn’t see it or opened it while wasted and promptly forgot about it.

It wouldn't surprise me if something was mailed to Nick's old address.

The reason people are treating this line of logic as retarded faggotry is because it's retarded faggotry. We all grant that there MIGHT be some legal technicality as to what a "retraction request" is but nobody has been able to really pinpoint anything other than newspaper rules. So speaking from a position of basic common sense reality...

I don't actually understand why Schneider has tried to make a point of it, because as far as I know there's no such "legal technicality" in Minnesota. I found one state statute (548.06) that specifically applies to libel (written publication) in a "newspaper," but I was unable to find active statutes defining a "newspaper," and the statements in question were oral, not written, making this a case of defamation rather than one of libel. And that statute wouldn't apply anyway to "any libel imputing unchastity," for which I was similarly unable to find a statutory definition but my lay interpretation would be that calling someone a pedophile would fit.

Again, this is a case of Schneider working from what he's found on Google, rather than from years of experience practicing Minnesota defamation law and understanding the technicalities of such cases. It doesn't appear to make any legal difference, in Minnesota, whether a retraction was requested, or whether such request was acquiesced or rejected.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It doesn't appear to make any legal difference, in Minnesota, whether a retraction was requested, or whether such request was acquiesced or rejected.

It does make some difference. See:

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).

So this could be very important if Nick ever tries to make the case that Montegraph is a limited purpose public figure and therefore Nick’s defamation must be actual malice. This would make that whole argument pointless (potentially)

 

[Kosher Salt]

It does make some difference. See:

I stand corrected then. I would argue that under the present set of circumstances, Monty provided no evidence, other than the word of a pathological liar, that would serve to inform Nick of the falsity of the claims, but it'd be pretty concerning if the jury had to decide on this.

 

[Spaded Dave]

I stand corrected then. I would argue that under the present set of circumstances, Monty provided no evidence, other than the word of a pathological liar, that would serve to inform Nick of the falsity of the claims, but it'd be pretty concerning if the jury had to decide on this.

I'd argue that Nick has provided no evidence for the truthfulness of his claims. Monty making creepy videos with barbies doesn't really draw a straight line to "sucking little boys cocks" and you'd be hard pressed if you saw the "Umbrella Man" video to say with confidence that actress was underage.

So would Monty need to provide proof that the claims are false given that Nick based the claims on no evidence to begin with? Genuine question, not being snarky.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that the only thing we really care about is seeing it go to trial, regardless of the outcome of our disagreements. I'd genuinely consider showing up for it depending on how convenient the timing is for me and where I happen to be in 2025.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I'd argue that Nick has provided no evidence for the truthfulness of his claims. Monty making creepy videos with barbies doesn't really draw a straight line to "sucking little boys cocks" and you'd be hard pressed if you saw the "Umbrella Man" video to say that actress was underage.

I'm fuzzy on the particulars but I had forgot to mention before that the "umbrella man" moniker and/or the checkerboard mask that Steve Quest wears as "The Rapist" was a nod to some sort of unsolved crime that did involve a minor, which led to speculation online at the time that Monty was in some way involved in the crime (rather than just an unrelated weirdo with a creepy fascination with that crime making a shock/horror film that seemed to mimic it). So I believe there was some context to the impression of the girl being underage (whether or not the actress playing the girl was, as it's not at all uncommon in film for the age of the character to be younger or older than the person acting the character).

 

[Spaded Dave]

I'm fuzzy on the particulars but I had forgot to mention before that the "umbrella man" moniker and/or the checkerboard mask that Steve Quest wears as "The Rapist" was a nod to some sort of unsolved crime that did involve a minor, which led to speculation online at the time that Monty was in some way involved in the crime (rather than just an unrelated weirdo with a creepy fascination with that crime making a shock/horror film that seemed to mimic it). So I believe there was some context to the impression of the girl being underage (whether or not the actress playing the girl was, as it's not at all uncommon in film for the age of the character to be younger or older than the person acting the character).

Interesting, I always thought the black and white face paint he always uses was Montagraphs personal mark of faggotry. But I'm not a viewer of his so I wouldn't know the deep lore either. It just makes me think of his godawful "My dark side" video that reeks of teenage angst in a 40 year old body. Highly recommend if you haven't seen it and you have a significant tolerance for cringe.

Im going to have to look up his irl inspiration. If Montagraph is a fan of any sort this guy it's based on must be a trip.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

With his habit of not replying to people and seemingly missing messages, I wouldn’t be surprised if Nick received a retraction request but either didn’t see it or opened it while wasted and promptly forgot about it.

I am not convinced he reads any e-mails until he gets some reminder to do so.

I see constant messages in his LOCALS that are some variant of 'Did you see my DM?' 'Nick! I need advice! Check e-mail!' 'Still trying to get woth you to schedule [thing we talked about and you agreed to months before]'.

Would be funny if his laziness does him in...

Assuming Monty's superchats aren't sufficient, Monty has sent retraction requests to Null, Sean, and Spectre. A website admin, a lawyer, and a dishonest idiot, respectively. So I would say there's a good chance Nick might have gotten something more specific we haven't seen and Nick isn't sharing. Nick has little credibility anymore, so his word means exactly jack shit in my book.

This needs to be seriously pondered. It appears that Monty (or his lawyer) are more capable than Nick presents them to be.

Not claiming they are 4-D Chessmasters, but if they can undermine Nick's support by showing that they got retraction from multiple sources and Nick failed to do the same, a jury might have second thoughts...

 

[John Andrews Stan]

I am not convinced he reads any e-mails until he gets some reminder to do so.

I see constant messages in his LOCALS that are some variant of 'Did you see my DM?' 'Nick! I need advice! Check e-mail!' 'Still trying to get woth you to schedule [thing we talked about and you agreed to months before]'.

Has Nick ever talked about being diagnosed as on the ADHD spectrum? Basic executive functioning is a challenge for those who are. They’re also really good at starting things but awful at seeing them through and tend to ostrich when shit hits the fan.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Has Nick ever talked about being diagnosed as on the ADHD spectrum? Basic executive functioning is a challenge for those who are. They’re also really good at starting things but awful at seeing them through and tend to ostrich when shit hits the fan.

He has self-diagnosed with ODD (a pediatric diagnosis that is a cover for Narcissism or APD in adults so as to not saddle them with that diagnosis if they grow out of it), and he claims his wife and kids are on ADHD meds. He has said that he is probably there too, but never got tested and he works just fine... LOL!

 

[mindlessobserver]

Is it really so hard for nick to settle for an undisclosed sum and apologize on stream? What does he hope to gain by "winning" this?

 

[TheClappening]

Has Nick ever talked about being diagnosed as on the ADHD spectrum? Basic executive functioning is a challenge for those who are. They’re also really good at starting things but awful at seeing them through and tend to ostrich when shit hits the fan.

I seem to remember when I still watched him that he claimed he had adult ADD. Not sure if he was joking

Is it really so hard for nick to settle for an undisclosed sum and apologize on stream? What does he hope to gain by "winning" this?

Superberries and pics of Mandy K's tits.

 

[AnOminous]

I seem to remember when I still watched him that he claimed he had adult ADD. Not sure if he was joking

Maybe he has this but what he definitely has is BAAFD (Being An Absolute Faggot Disorder).

 

[John Andrews Stan]

I seem to remember when I still watched him that he claimed he had adult ADD. Not sure if he was joking

Honestly he fits the criteria at least based on observing from afar his patterns over a few years. It’s pretty commonplace. But he’s an adult with the means to manage it more effectively (read: so it causes less disruption to his and others’ lives). The fact that he doesn’t even bother trying is downright pathetic.