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

[Useful_Mistake]

The jury sides with Monte, and the jury/judge give Montegraph nominal damages ($5k?) and lawyer's fees. And more people in Kandiyohi county find the Rekietas to be a bunch of weirdos.

I’ve seen 5k being awarded, and while I think that’s a bit much, as far as I know that is a pretty reasonable expectation on your end. The only way I see Nick winning is if he starts hammering (he spent far too little time on this in his original response, imo) the point that he is a drunk retard speaking while heavily drunk (even Montagraph agrees with that) and claim that no reasonable person would believe that he is spouting facts, not opinion. The whole touting of Montagraph’s reputation is good for reducing potential damages the jury would award, but meaningly pointless for winning the case as Nick (unwisely in my opinion) admitted that Montagraph is not libel proof.

 

[TheClappening]

If we want to see how defamation per se can translate to tangible damages, check the Vic Mignogna case.

Man gets metoo'd and suddenly dozens of conventions, where he'd make thousands from autographs and appearance fees, canceled on him. He could show actual numbers, whereas Quest really can't.

I can certainly see punitive damages being there in order to bitch slap Nick, but 50k compensatory seems unlikely.

 

[AnOminous]

Yeah, I see that. On the other hand, he might not have the money to fight this to the end

All he had to do was say he did an oopsy doodle and a fucky wucky and admit a dude is not a literal rapist of small children, a completely false and vile accusation.

No, it is hilarious because there is no way Montagraph suffered 50 grand. People who think this isn't a cash grab are being blinded by their hate for Nick,

Well of course it's a cash grab but once you go cross the Rubicon the price goes up immediately.

Nick went full retard. That carries a price tag.

The only way I see Nick winning is if he starts hammering (he spent far too little time on this in his original response, imo) the point that he is a drunk retard speaking while heavily drunk (even Montagraph agrees with that) and claim that no reasonable person would believe that he is spouting facts, not opinion.

The main problem with this avenue to victory, which is really the only one he has (and you can see Randazza trying to go there from time to time) is he is basically admitting what we have all been saying for months about him, that he is a complete clown and nothing he says can be taken seriously at this point.

 

[Captain Manning]

Nick wouldn't want to become known as a guy who will give you a briefcase full of cash because he's very scared of your lawsuit and wants it to go away.

No, instead, he's on track to be known as the fucking idiot who can never back down and admit when he's wrong. Then spending tens of thousands of dollars to avoid having to do either. That money is now gone gone, regardless of how the case is ultimately resolved. His expenses, at this point, have almost certainly exceeded what Monty is asking for.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't defend against frivolous lawsuits. Just maybe don't say anything that could trigger a meritorious one. Or don't go out and hire the most expensive lawyer and then pin your hopes on a long-shot strategy involving an application of Colorado's anti-SLAPP.

The way Monty's thread OP has changed is, IMO, informative of how this should have been handled from the getgo. Null retracted the singular pedophile-adjacent claim on request from Monty. Why? Well, it's certainly not because he is opposed to mean words being said on the Internet, or is known for caving easily to bullshit threats (legal, or otherwise). As you note, he's tangoed with the likes of Melinda Scott before.

No, I suspect it's because, as the OP author (not just publisher), Section 230 protection wouldn't shield him personally if Monty wanted to start some legal shit over it. Null concedes that there is no credible proof Monty is either a pedo or child molester. Coupled with the fact that he's stated several times on MATI, and elsewhere, that he's morally repulsed by falsely claiming somebody is a pedo.

Null, who is known for being rather stubborn person at times (often to our collective benefit in keeping this site up), still apparently knows a losing move when he sees one. Nick, not so much. Null may be stubborn, but he's demonstrably smarter than Nick, and is a person of integrity. Nick is stubborn, retarded, and intellectually dishonest. That unfortunate combination is now biting Nick in the ass.

No, it is hilarious because there is no way Montagraph suffered 50 grand. People who think this isn't a cash grab are being blinded by their hate for Nick,

And if Monty filed this in small claims court and asked for $500, people in Nick's clique would still be going "herp derp, hail Lord Rackets!." That's just the way it goes on the Internet. Especially when it involves e-celebrities. Some people pick a side, and chose to defend their favorite e-daddy to the death. Often in the face of common sense. You know that. I know that. I think many here know that.

But not everybody here is viewing this through the lens of who their favorite person is. Or even most people, I think. Let's not start beating each other to death with such accusations.

I don't know how much money Monty deserves. I think at one point, in the Rekieta thread, I conceded that Monty's reputation isn't worth that much. Fortunately, nobody here need to calculate anything, because it would be for a jury to decide (if it gets that far). I just think Nick is dumb for saying what he did, and I think that's a easily defensible and reasonable position. It's a position formed not out of "hating Nick," but rather comprehending what Nick did.

The jury sides with Monte, and the jury/judge give Montegraph nominal damages ($5k?) and lawyer's fees. And more people in Kandiyohi county find the Rekietas to be a bunch of weirdos.

Oh, fuck 5K. I'll make it easier for you.

Let's say Monty gets awarded nominal damages of $1. Which, incidentally, is Mike Dunford's prediction. If we go with $1, we can dispense with the kvetching over what Monty is or isn't worth. $1 would be symbolic.

If Monty wins $1, Monty still wins. He wins because Nick has the eternal embarrassment of losing to goddamned Montagraph, and he's on the hook for an obscenely large bill to Randazza.

Hell, based on billable hours and rates alone, I'm pretty sure Monty has already won.

 

[Spaded Dave]

he only specifically called out the watermelon thing as a lie

Oh well since that was the only thing he SPECIFICALLY mentioned, let's all just pretend we're retards then. (Moreso than we already are for being on this site, I mean)

a thing that, in fact, was not a lie.

Actually since you care so much about being specific then this is, in fact, a lie. He did not have sexual relations with that watermelon. The only thing there is evidence of is him shoving his fingers into its carved mouth hole. Creepy and weird? Yes. Fucking? No.

Is the distinction important? Idk, you're the one getting into pedantry so I guess it has to be.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't know how much money Monty deserves. I think at one point, in the Rekieta thread, I conceded that Monty's reputation isn't worth that much. Fortunately, nobody here need to calculate anything, because it would be for a jury to decide (if it gets that far). I just think Nick is dumb for saying what he did, and I think that's a easily defensible and reasonable position. It's a position formed not out of "hating Nick," but rather comprehending what Nick did.

The compensatory damages are probably pretty minimal. What has Monty actually lost? Not much.

The real issue is what punitive damages can be. Generally, they're somewhat related to compensatory damages, but there really aren't solid rules on it in most jurisdictions, and not Minnesota, although I haven't actually looked it up or anything. So in theory you could get nominal compensatory damages of like a buck but the jury just hates you so much you get punitives out the wazoo, because they want to see you punished for being a complete dick.

That kind of thing is often reversed, sometimes even by the trial court with a remittitur motion.

But not always.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Monty asking for 50k is absolutely obnoxious

Monty asked for damages in excess of $50,000.

Under Minnesota rules, if Monty was asking for under $50k, he'd need to specify exactly how much he wanted. But that requirement is capped at $50k, so he just has to say he wants over $50k.

I am rather certain that my post was not, in fact, defamatory per se. Noticably, however, I find that you are unable to point to any examples either. Curious, that.

You totally misunderstood what that post was saying. The user wasn't saying that you posted anything defamatory per se. The user was saying the fact that Rekieta is alleged to have said things which are defamatory per se totally negates your point. I will explain it to you:

You can't just claim you suffered 50k and then get awarded 50k. If he can't prove actual damages, the only thing he may be entitled to is punitive damages which will be for a jury to decide.

This is actually incorrect. Ordinarily it wouldn't be, but this is defamation per se. You ought to look up what the implication of a statement being defamatory per se is. Monty doesn't have to prove damages if the statements are defamatory per se. Instead, he would be able to collect damages that the jury determines would normally be associated with their publication. If you don't believe me, here's an excerpt from the jury instructions as relating to general damages from the fourth and final trial in the Longbehn case, with my emphasis making the relevant line bolded, underlined, and large:

Defamation​

The use of the term “Pat the pedophile” is defamation per se. A person is liable for the general harm which results from the defamatory statement. Your duty as a jury is to determine the amount of money Plaintiff may receive for Defendant’s statement.

Presumed General Damages
​

Deciding harm for defamation​

The only question for you to decide is the amount of money the Plaintiff is entitled to receive for
1. Harm to his reputation and standing in the community;
2. Mental distress;
3. Humiliation; and
4. Embarrassment

No evidence of actual harm is required.

You may base the amount of money Plaintiff if entitled to receive on your assessment of the harm that would normally be assumed to flow from a defamatory publication of the nature involved here.

In your assessment of presumed general damages you may consider: (1) the character of the Plaintiff; (2) the Plaintiff’s general standing and his reputation in the community; (3) the character of the defamatory publication; (4) the extent of dissemination of the statement by the Defendant; and (5) the extent and duration of the circulation of the Defendant’s publication.

This excerpt comes from an article in the William Mitchell Law Review on presumed damages. You may recognize that the Longbehn case was cited by the judge in her ruling on Nick's motion (specifically, it was the appeal surrounding the second trial, where the appeals court ruled that the statement was defamation per se). The fourth time around the case didn't get appealed and remanded for another trial, so these instructions are probably a decent guidepost.

My prediction is that if this case goes to trial it will probably devolve into both sides slinging mud at each other. The jury are unlikely to particularly like each side:

• If they decide they like Monty less than Nick, they can award Monty nothing or a token sum.
• If they decide they like Nick less than Monty, they can award Monty general damages that they presume would normally flow from such statements which may or may not be tethered to any sum of actual damages that Monty presents evidence for at trial.

Now, my understanding is that if the jury went extremely wild with their award, Nick could try to convince the judge to set it aside. But in that case, the best case scenario for Nick is the judge says "yes, this is excessive" and Nick gets to pay more legal bills for another trial. I guess the worst case scenario is Nick gets to argue to the appellate court that the judge's determination regarding the extremely amorphous concept of "presumed damages" was an abuse of discretion.

Are you getting why the flashing "SETTLE! SETTLE! SETTLE!" alarm bells ought to be flashing in Nick's head right now?

No, it is hilarious because there is no way Montagraph suffered 50 grand. People who think this isn't a cash grab are being blinded by their hate for Nick,

Of course it's a cash grab. Why wouldn't it be?

What is hilarious about what Nick did is that he gave Montagraph a cause of action where Montagraph does not have to prove damages. That is like saying "please grab my cash".

Considering that he did nothing about the pedophile allegations since 2015 and the terrible reputation he wielded even before Nick, if there's any punitive (or other) damages, it will be on the low end.

Read the Montagraph OP. He tried to sue someone else while representing himself several years ago.

He's not upset about the allegations. If he was, he had nearly a decade to do something about them.

Okay, this is just stupid.

The entire reason he has a thread here is that he had a reputation for being litigious; in fact, the word "litigious" even appears in the first sentence of the OP.

I think the reason he's suing Nick now is that Nick is a juicy enough target for a real lawyer to take a case on contingency.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Monty asked for damages in excess of $50,000.

Under Minnesota rules, if Monty was asking for under $50k, he'd need to specify exactly how much he wanted. But that requirement is capped at $50k, so he just has to say he wants over $50k.

This is good info. I need to tip my hat to Schneider again, the sum they went after Nick for is big, but it's a sum that's:

• Under the federal minimum to require a federal case (and thus more costly)
• Over the state maximum for itemizing damages (and thus more costly to Monte in terms of billable hours)

This is threading the needle in terms of efficient lawyering for your client. You can say what you want to about the paperwork filed so far (others have done it better than I could), but this looks like a fairly solid strategy.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

Jesus, the lolsuit is turning this into a lolthread.

 

[talk talk talk]

(Or more, Monte was asking for $50k.)

Just a note on Minnesota pleading.

In a civil case in Minnesota, if you request less than $50,000 in damages, you have to itemize the damages in the complaint. So if your damages are kind of vague, you plead "in excess of $50,000.00" as your damages.

It's common practice to just request "in excess of $50,000" in damages, especially in the personal injury world Schneider comes from. It doesn't mean Schneider and Quest have actually valued the case at that amount.

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment for the relief sought; if a recovery of money is demanded, the amount shall be stated. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded. If a recovery of money for unliquidated damages is demanded in an amount less than $50,000, the amount shall be stated. If a recovery of money for unliquidated damages in an amount greater than $50,000 is demanded, the pleading shall state merely that recovery of reasonable damages in an amount greater than $50,000 is sought.​

Minn.R.Civ.P. 8.01.

 

[AnOminous]

Monty doesn't have to prove damages if the statements are defamatory per se.

Actually he does eventually, just not immediately. Defamation per se defeats a motion to dismiss because damages are presumed, but to actually collect anything, you ultimately do have to prove damages.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Just a note on Minnesota pleading.

In a civil case in Minnesota, if you request less than $50,000 in damages, you have to itemize the damages in the complaint. So if your damages are kind of vague, you plead "in excess of $50,000.00" as your damages.

It's common practice to just request "in excess of $50,000" in damages, especially in the personal injury world Schneider comes from. It doesn't mean Schneider and Quest have actually valued the case at that amount.

I am wondering something in particular with the complaint:

It doesn't specifically mention punitive damages. Would this close the door on punitive damages or is that sufficient?

The last sentence in particular seems to be boilerplate attached to a lot of complaints and they seem to all be from MN, but I'm not sure if there's any particular significance to it.

Actually he does eventually, just not immediately. Defamation per se defeats a motion to dismiss because damages are presumed, but to actually collect anything, you ultimately do have to prove damages.

Apparently that's not the case in Minnesota.

This is a direct excerpt from the jury instructions from the fourth and final trial in the "Pat the Pedo" defamation case (the source I took it from is from the law review article I linked in the post above).

No evidence of actual harm is required.

You may base the amount of money Plaintiff if entitled to receive on your assessment of the harm that would normally be assumed to flow from a defamatory publication of the nature involved here.

In your assessment of presumed general damages you may consider: (1) the character of the Plaintiff; (2) the Plaintiff’s general standing and his reputation in the community; (3) the character of the defamatory publication; (4) the extent of dissemination of the statement by the Defendant; and (5) the extent and duration of the circulation of the Defendant’s publication.

 

[Captain Manning]

Actually since you care so much about being specific then this is, in fact, a lie. He did not have sexual relations with that watermelon. The only thing there is evidence of is him shoving his fingers into its carved mouth hole. Creepy and weird? Yes. Fucking? No.

Wait a minute! So he didn't actually fuck the watermelon? I thought that was the one thing he always gets accused of that there was actual proof of.

*Looks at Montagraph thread again*

The most famous thing he's done is make out with a melon. It is very hard to find the actual footage of it, and unfortunately, the people following Montagraph over the years tend to edit content deceptively. It is usually pitched that Montagraph had sex with it, but in the found footage he's dressing it up as a girl and fingering it. In the Skype call, which Montagraph claims had 8 people in it, they talk about selling it. It seems like a joke to me, but his detractors say it's a credit card scam.

Holy shit! This just keeps getting better and better!

I was wondering why Monty only requested the underage photography claim be retracted from his OP, but he said nothing about the watermelon. I guess there was never a claim in his OP he fucked the watermelon, Null doesn't find the story credible, and Monty seems okay with the way Null worded what likely happened.

Nick, what the fuck are you doing? Did you get every single claim about Monty wrong?

 

[talk talk talk]

It doesn't specifically mention punitive damages. Would this close the door on punitive damages or is that sufficient?

Another Minnesota pleading quirk: You can't claim punitive damages in the original complaint. You have to bring a separate motion for leave to amend the original complaint to claim them.

One of the effects of this is that it makes the motion to amend to plead punitive damages like a mini (paper) trial and a big deal. The plaintiff has to put their cards on the table and show clear and convincing evidence they are likely to win their punitive damages at trial.

Minnesota may be a blue state, but it is dominated by the medical industry--Mayo Clinic, Medtronic, and United Health Care are all in Minnesota. They have worked very hard to limit punies.

Upon commencement of a civil action, the complaint must not seek punitive damages. After filing the suit a party may make a motion to amend the pleadings to claim punitive damages. The motion must allege the applicable legal basis under section 549.20 or other law for awarding punitive damages in the action and must be accompanied by one or more affidavits showing the factual basis for the claim. At the hearing on the motion, if the court finds prima facie evidence in support of the motion, the court shall grant the moving party permission to amend the pleadings to claim punitive damages. For purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, pleadings amended under this section relate back to the time the action was commenced.​

Minn. Stat. § 549.191.

 

[Swole McPole]

$50k? More like $15k, the dude's barely qualified to be making minimum wage, and then he'd still have to explain why he only decided to go get that job after the alleged defamation occurs. If you went back and compared it to his average annual income from previous years, I suspect it'd be closer to $0k.

Yeah, I was talking generally, rather than about Monty specifically -- because, of course, I have no idea what his financial circumstances are, and I suspect you have no more idea than I do. And it's not that important where you have defamation per se anyway.

My only point is, I don't think $50k is a stupendously high bar to reach. Median US income in 2021 was $70k. Whether Monty reaches this bar or not is something we'll learn down the road, but I suspect many on the jury will share my view -- particularly if Rekieta rolls up to court in his lawpope Mustang.

Rich trust fund baby lawyer who earns a mill a year on YouTube goes around defaming poor hard working artist for clicks and views? Hang the bastard!

 

[John Andrews Stan]

I thought “Team Monty all the fucking way.” was pretty self explanatory.

Which just goes to show your reading comprehension is for shit. A person can pick a side in a given dispute without being a fan of anyone involved. You are posting as if it’s your money Nick’s spending on this self-own. Funny, that.

Considering your statement above, this feels pretty ironic. “Rules for thee” much?

What are you even talking about? Your sympathy for the guy who dared a known litigious plaintiff to sue him for defamation could have far more worthy recipients. Your boner for this drunk degenerate friend of pedos is weird, dude.

 

[7iKjzrcw]

Mate, learn to quote. Here’s a guide.

Here, mate, just for you, mate, seethe more about my quoting, mate. Fix your shit so that it works on half-loaded page from bad circuit or stop being smartass. The only reason I created account was due to your retarded post "there is no way Montagraph suffered 50 grand" in defamation per se case. At least you did course correction on this page, but jeez, the previous one was on full retard mode. I also want to point out that the case is not only about money, but also about gag order for Nick.
Was stuff send by Montagraph, was not, has he asked for retraction or not is tad moot, when Nick doubles down after getting sued showing reckless disregard for truth. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

 

[feral cat #6385]

Now, my understanding is that if the jury went extremely wild with their award, Nick could try to convince the judge to set it aside. But in that case, the best case scenario for Nick is the judge says "yes, this is excessive" and Nick gets to pay more legal bills for another trial. I guess the worst case scenario is Nick gets to argue to the appellate court that the judge's determination regarding the extremely amorphous concept of "presumed damages" was an abuse of discretion.

Rich trust fund baby lawyer who earns a mill a year on YouTube goes around defaming poor hard working artist for clicks and views? Hang the bastard!

If I got stuck on a jury for a drunken piece of shit lawyer there's no way I'm going to let what he said slide just because he is a drunk. Rather the opposite. I'm going to be irate I had to serve as a juror for five dollars a day or whatever pittance they pay in Minnesota. I'm gonna find Rekieta guilty, give Montagraph $3.50 in damages. Then turn around and give him $1,000,000 in punitive damages. If I ever get called in to tard wrangle I'm gonna make sure the tard can't tard out again.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

Monty asked for damages in excess of $50,000.

I was referring to his settlement demand (pre-lolsuit) that was alleged to be 50k

I understand the statutory pleading requirements.

If I got stuck on a jury for a drunken piece of shit lawyer there's no way I'm going to let what he said slide just because he is a drunk. Rather the opposite. I'm going to be irate I had to serve as a juror for five dollars a day or whatever pittance they pay in Minnesota. I'm gonna find Rekieta guilty, give Montagraph $3.50 in damages. Then turn around and give him $1,000,000 in punitive damages. If I ever get called in to tard wrangle I'm gonna make sure the tard can't tard out again.

You're actually on the jury for a nutter who thinks he helped the CIA. They're going to be pissed off at Monty.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I’ve seen 5k being awarded, and while I think that’s a bit much, as far as I know that is a pretty reasonable expectation on your end. The only way I see Nick winning is if he starts hammering (he spent far too little time on this in his original response, imo) the point that he is a drunk retard speaking while heavily drunk (even Montagraph agrees with that) and claim that no reasonable person would believe that he is spouting facts, not opinion. The whole touting of Montagraph’s reputation is good for reducing potential damages the jury would award, but meaningly pointless for winning the case as Nick (unwisely in my opinion) admitted that Montagraph is not libel proof.

The Maddow Defence? Lol!

More likely than not, I expect him to hammer 'muh 1A!', especially given that he has Randazza... I am not particularly knowledgeable about Randazza's legal strategy in the past, but I think this is what Nick would push.

Nick also might be relying on Monty running out of money. I would not, but it is one more frail hope for him to stubbornly cling to.

Oh well since that was the only thing he SPECIFICALLY mentioned, let's all just pretend we're retards then. (Moreso than we already are for being on this site, I mean)

Actually since you care so much about being specific then this is, in fact, a lie. He did not have sexual relations with that watermelon. The only thing there is evidence of is him shoving his fingers into its carved mouth hole. Creepy and weird? Yes. Fucking? No.

Is the distinction important? Idk, you're the one getting into pedantry so I guess it has to be.

Wait a minute! So he didn't actually fuck the watermelon? I thought that was the one thing he always gets accused of that there was actual proof of.

*Looks at Montagraph thread again*

Holy shit! This just keeps getting better and better!

I was wondering why Monty only requested the underage photography claim be retracted from his OP, but he said nothing about the watermelon. I guess there was never a claim in his OP he fucked the watermelon, Null doesn't find the story credible, and Monty seems okay with the way Null worded what likely happened.

Nick, what the fuck are you doing? Did you get every single claim about Monty wrong?

Your Honour, it was a cantelope...

What this is really driving home to me is that Nick has no real basis for any of his accusations. When they get into the facts, is Nick going to cite the forum? Is he going to have Jim wrote an affidavit from his deathbed? What will he rely upon to convince a jury?