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

[feral cat #6385]

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

Already factored that in. Choosing between a fucking drunk asshole lawyer, and some dude with half a dozen screws loose. Easy call. Crazy guy wins every time. May he use Racket's money to get his head put on right.

 

[AnOminous]

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).

This more or less tracks the language about general damages in NYT v. Sullivan and can literally be a dollar.

If I ever get called in to tard wrangle I'm gonna make sure the tard can't tard out again.

Imagine being a normie, and you have an actual job, and now you're dragged out of your job, and it's a case about some drunken faggot who felt compelled to falsely accuse some other faggot of sucking little boys' dicks, and then, after making this explicit accusation, this jizzbearded faggot just openly dared the guy to sue him for this utterly false bullshit.

And now you are having days of your life wasted listening to the retarded slapfight between these faggots.

And now a judge is telling you you get to decide how big a dick you ram up the ass of the idiot who wasted your time like this.

It's going to be huge. HUGE.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

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 could just give Monty the max compensatory (like several million) and $1 in punitive. I still prefer the $1 in compensatory, $0 in punitive, costs for both sides.

What will he rely upon to convince a jury?

"I heard it from everyone else (some exceptional individuals on the net), therefore it was true" seems to be what he's doubling down on.
You know what that sounds like? Hearsay!

@AnOminous quick question. If Nick's original sources are considered hearsay, how does the judge balance the state of mind questions of Nick with the (what appears to me) hearsay of the original source? Would the jury instruction allow them to use these statements as to Nick's state of mind as to the defamation (and thus punitive damages), but NOT to determine the fact question of "Is Montagrph is a pedo/melon molester"?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

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.

Again, I really do not think Nick should have defamed Montagraph, and him repeating rumors he couldn't verify was both unwise and very ironic considering his stance on Vic controversy. I have little sympathy for Montagraph (especially considering he doesn't seem to be actually bothered by the accusation if the Super Chats are legit), but yeah, if Nick knowingly (that it is false) repeated this shit, then that's super vile behavior on his behalf.

(and you can see Randazza trying to go there from time to time

Problem is that he mentioned it, spent like two paragraphs on it, and never hit the point home, merely lightly touched on it as sorta an afterthought.

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.

If he doesn't win enough to offset his lawyer costs, he doesn't really win. I mean, I could see it if Nick was heavily damaging him, yeah, than either way that'd be a win, but given that Nick is bleeding more money than Montagraph, I can really see your point of view.

Oh well since that was the only thing he SPECIFICALLY mentioned, let's all just pretend we're retards then.

You missed my point, I think. I think it's interesting to consider that in his alleged retraction request, he did not request to retract the pedo claims, but the watermelon claims. I think that matters a great deal in considering how much he cares or was damaged by the allegedly defamatory statements.

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

Idk man, dressing up a watermelon as a woman, doing foreplay with it, while making orgasmic faces does seem like sexual relations to me. Nick wasn't wrong in calling his statement substantially true. Montagraph's friend himself described the act as "fucking a melon" to which Monty agreed (as per the video in the OP (around 2:30 mark))

Idk, considering the facts, seems like this statement was not defamatory after all.

and not Minnesota, although I haven't actually looked it up or anything.

I haven't seen any rules on it either bar 549.20 which pretty much just says that it can be done, what Judges should consider, and judicial review

The user was saying the fact that Rekieta is alleged to have said things which are defamatory per se totally negates your point

The user should then write more clearly. Besides, me saying that Montegraph suffered no observable damages does not somehow mean that I am denying the rules regarding defamation per se.

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.

I did not claim he had to prove actual/presumed damages to be entitled to relief from the court, merely that if he cannot prove actual damages that leaves his relief in punitive damages. US courts do not hold that you can just magic up unlimited amount of presumed damages where no damage was suffered even in Defamation per se cases. To any extent that he may get presumed damages from the vile accusation, it certainly will not near anywhere close to 50k.

• 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.

They can hardly, however, declare that he was harmed to a greater financial extent than he ever had in reputation or financial gain. There is a reason why Nick wants to focus so much on Montagraphs reputation in discovery; he wants to limit possible damages.

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.

Indeed.

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

Yes, I'll take the L on this one, i had forgotten about it. Of course, given that this was yet another improperly (motive) filed case, I'd say that, at the very least, does not lessen my point

for a real lawyer to take a case on contingency.

I don't remember that being in any of the docs.

in fact, the word "litigious" even appears in the first sentence of the OP.

Once, and the OP has only one lawsuit.

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.

My God, Nigger, that's exactly what I accused you off. I said that in the dispute of two parties both which are guilty of vile actions (Montegraph did the very same thing he accused Nick of), you weirdly picked Montagraph as a favorite despite that he is acting just as Nick in this scenario. You then proceeded to tell me that you chose neither (by claiming my assertion about your beliefs was wrong), and now, being a massive faggot, you are claiming the first thing again.


Fuck off with this shit.

What are you even talking about? Your sympathy for the guy

"HOW DARE YOU ASSUME MY BELIEFS!!!!!!!!!!"
"Uh, yeah, actually, sweety, here's what you believe"

This. I was making fun of you for doing this.

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.

Lmao. Imagine being this mad at me.

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.

You could just give Monty the max compensatory (like several million) and $1 in punitive. I still prefer the $1 in compensatory, $0 in punitive, costs for both sides.

And this would be overturned by either a judge or an appellate court precisely because you're not allowed to do that (rule based on prejudice and in violation of applicable law)

The Maddow Defence? Lol!

It's a well established Supreme Court defense (that got later attributed to her), but yeah. Only way Nick can win this.

When they get into the facts, is Nick going to cite the forum?

That'd be a losing argument on NIck's side.

 

[Spaded Dave]

Idk man, dressing up a watermelon as a woman, doing foreplay with it, while making orgasmic faces does seem like sexual relations to me.

Fingering its mouth as part of some weirdo YouTube skit carries substantially different implications than what "fucking a watermelon" would, so I'll disagree but grant that it's a difference of opinion rather than fact. (Although imagining the literal image of Monty shoving his fingers in a woman's mouth while moaning is both hilarious and terrifying, so thanks for that)

Although I only bring this up to point out Nick is a liar. I don't personally believe that the accusation, even if false, should be considered defamatory in the first place. Which adds to how weird it is for Monty to focus on it.

Lmao. Imagine being this mad at me.

You literally got someone so MATI that they had to create an account to respond to you. You win. That's hilarious.

 

[Uncle Buck]

I think. I think it's interesting to consider that in his alleged retraction request, he did not request to retract the pedo claims, but the watermelon claims. I think that matters a great deal in considering how much he cares or was damaged by the allegedly defamatory statements.

Idk man, dressing up a watermelon as a woman, doing foreplay with it, while making orgasmic faces does seem like sexual relations to me. Nick wasn't wrong in calling his statement substantially true. Montagraph's friend himself described the act as "fucking a melon" to which Monty agreed (as per the video in the OP (around 2:30 mark))

Idk, considering the facts, seems like this statement was not defamatory after all.

Is it really even defamatory - let alone defamatory per se - to say someone fucked a watermelon? I mean, if there's a statute out there somewhere that says it's a crime, okay, but......

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Although I only bring this up to point out Nick is a liar.

Yeah, no shit, he called Monty a pedo with literally no proof.

Is it really even defamatory - let alone defamatory per se - to say someone fucked a watermelon?

Maybe? If we stretch the definition of sexual misconduct (something that is defamatory per se in Minnesota. See Yang v. Robert Half Int'l, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-2669 (NEB/DTS) (D. Minn. Sep. 8, 2020)), maybe it'd count, but personally I wouldn't consider it defamatory per se. It probably would be defamatory in general. I can't imagine that people would look lightly upon a person accused of such perversions. Then again, it's 2023, so who knows.

 

[Sock Cucker]

I think one should consider the hometown factor. My impression is that small-town Minnesota types will circle the wagons to a certain extent, and with all of his family's charity work, the last name may be recognizable to many and predisposed to goodwill. Plaintiff from out of the area balanced out by local lawyer.
Would they strike anyone who had hired/been sued by Schneider, or had benefitted from a Rekieta supported charity? Just curious, I find jury selections like this interesting.

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

I don't know if its been discussed here too much, I've stopped listening to Rackets nightly about the time the lolsuit started, so I haven't been following it too much.

When I do check in though, everyone seems to be of the opinion that Rackets is fucked because he called Monty a Pedo. Which is fucked up, however I haven't really seen too much attention brought to Monty's behavior in Nick's streams prior to this happening.

Namely, showing up in every single one of Nick's streams for like weeks prior to talk shit and try to provoke him. This is purely a layman's take here, but if I'm on a jury and I find out that the plantiff in a civil case, alleging defamation showed up nightly to the defendant's place of business and tried to provoke a reaction out of him (which Monty did do), I wouldn't consider anything that happened as a result of that provocation to be defamatory.

I think most people understand that there's a certain amount of "Fuck around and find out." at play in any given situation. Especially if its known that the defendant would likely be drinking in any given situation. An impaired mind being provoked by a dude that fucked a water melon is not someone I would personally choose to rule against.

Also because I've seen it brought up with like technicalities of "Did Monty really fuck a water melon though? He just dressed it up like a woman and fingered it or whatever."

Nigger please.

Yes, he fucked a water melon, if not literally then by implication. No sane person looks at the above mentioned scenario and goes "Okay, but because he didn't technically stick his penis into it on camera, we're not gonna treat him like some degenerate weirdo."

The most layman of layman takes: Montegraph probably fucked a water melon and made it a point to provoke someone who was drinking nightly at what essentially is his place of business. He fucked around. He found out.

 

[Associate Rick]

Namely, showing up in every single one of Nick's streams for like weeks prior to talk shit and try to provoke him. This is purely a layman's take here, but if I'm on a jury and I find out that the plantiff in a civil case, alleging defamation showed up nightly to the defendant's place of business and tried to provoke a reaction out of him (which Monty did do), I wouldn't consider anything that happened as a result of that provocation to be defamatory.

Are you forgetting that Nick continually called him a retard and even had a joke about Monty being his assigned retard for his business, it wasn't Monty just going at Nick, it was a back and forth.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

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.

I think we have all pretty much agreed that $1 is the likely total if it gets awarded

I think one should consider the hometown factor. My impression is that small-town Minnesota types will circle the wagons to a certain extent, and with all of his family's charity work, the last name may be recognizable to many and predisposed to goodwill. Plaintiff from out of the area balanced out by local lawyer.
Would they strike anyone who had hired/been sued by Schneider, or had benefitted from a Rekieta supported charity? Just curious, I find jury selections like this interesting.

Yes, those associations get sussed out right at the beginning. The judge usually asks those questions about "Have you ever had a case involving Attorney Schneider or Attorney Randazza?"

As far as the philanthropic stuff it seems like most of that was in the Twin Cities area....but Schneider could go and ask about it if he knew and argue it is to eliminate bias.....but then you're pointing out that the Defendant has done a lot of charity work, so that might not be the best thing to bring up.

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

Are you forgetting that Nick continually called him a retard and even had a joke about Monty being his assigned retard for his business, it wasn't Monty just going at Nick, it was a back and forth.

Retard is a common slang in the modern vocabulary. No one's gonna sperg about it. Also Monty fucked a water melon, he's probably retarded and the accusations that Monty was his govt. assigned retard came from the fact Monty had been following him around previously doing the same shit.

 

[Mister Dongs]

I think one should consider the hometown factor. My impression is that small-town Minnesota types will circle the wagons to a certain extent, and with all of his family's charity work, the last name may be recognizable to many and predisposed to goodwill.

I'm not so sure. This Schneider guy is a folksy hometown lawyer and he's pulling a virtuoso performance in fucking Rekieta up on behalf of some retarded melonfucker that nobody's even sure what state they live in. Maybe the average local everyman in dogfuck minnesota is also looking for an excuse to push Balldo's shit in first chance they get as well. Precedent has taught us that the worst legal outcome possible is a safe bet when it involves Nick in any capacity.

 

[sneedem&feedem]

Retard is a common slang in the modern vocabulary. No one's gonna sperg about it.

When you go get groceries, call the store clerk a retard. Tell us how they or anyone within earshot react.

 

[AnOminous]

I think one should consider the hometown factor. My impression is that small-town Minnesota types will circle the wagons to a certain extent, and with all of his family's charity work, the last name may be recognizable to many and predisposed to goodwill.

Or maybe they actually know him and he's a complete asshole wherever he goes, so they already hate him.

I just don't see a Balldo faggot as being particularly popular in small town Minnesota.

According to his own tales, he's already mouthed off to this particular judge and she doesn't like him.

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

When you go get groceries, call the store clerk a retard. Tell us how they or anyone within earshot react.

Retarded argument from a retarded person. If you go to someone's place of business it doesn't matter what mean word you use, if you call someone names they're gonna be pissed, but if I'm out at a restaurant and I say I had to deal with retarded clients all day, no one's gonna bat an eye.

Edit:

I was actually gonna just leave the above, but you illustrate my point more aptly than I did. If I intentionally went to someone's place of business and intentionally provoked them, they would probably get unhappy and react negatively. Now imagine I did that daily for weeks and then when they finally lost their cool, sued them for defamation. You think a jury would side with me?

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

I don't know if its been discussed here too much, I've stopped listening to Rackets nightly about the time the lolsuit started, so I haven't been following it too much.

When I do check in though, everyone seems to be of the opinion that Rackets is fucked because he called Monty a Pedo. Which is fucked up, however I haven't really seen too much attention brought to Monty's behavior in Nick's streams prior to this happening.

Namely, showing up in every single one of Nick's streams for like weeks prior to talk shit and try to provoke him. This is purely a layman's take here, but if I'm on a jury and I find out that the plantiff in a civil case, alleging defamation showed up nightly to the defendant's place of business and tried to provoke a reaction out of him (which Monty did do), I wouldn't consider anything that happened as a result of that provocation to be defamatory.

I think most people understand that there's a certain amount of "Fuck around and find out." at play in any given situation. Especially if its known that the defendant would likely be drinking in any given situation. An impaired mind being provoked by a dude that fucked a water melon is not someone I would personally choose to rule against.

Also because I've seen it brought up with like technicalities of "Did Monty really fuck a water melon though? He just dressed it up like a woman and fingered it or whatever."

Nigger please.

Yes, he fucked a water melon, if not literally then by implication. No sane person looks at the above mentioned scenario and goes "Okay, but because he didn't technically stick his penis into it on camera, we're not gonna treat him like some degenerate weirdo."

The most layman of layman takes: Montegraph probably fucked a water melon and made it a point to provoke someone who was drinking nightly at what essentially is his place of business. He fucked around. He found out.

Respectfully, I think there is a huge difference between fingering a personified watermelon vs. sticking your dick in it. You can at least come to the conclusion it was shock content and not outright degeneracy like that one guy that giggles maniacally while popping balloons. But I understand why some (or even most) wouldn't think the distinction matters.

With regards to showing up in Nick's chat to talk shit and spread sweaty sausage squad memes, I couldn't disagree more. The "He called me a weirdo first!" defense doesn't work when you call someone a pedophile and there is no real substance to the claim with more than a little checking. We're not even talking about "this guy seems like he might be a pedo" levels of shit talk, Nick specifically said that Monty likes to "suck little boy dicks".

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

With regards to showing up in Nick's chat to talk shit and spread sweaty sausage squad memes, I couldn't disagree more. The "He called me a weirdo first!" defense doesn't work when you call someone a pedophile and there is no real substance to the claim with more than a little checking. We're not even talking about "this guy seems like he might be a pedo" levels of shit talk, Nick specifically said that Monty likes to "suck little boy dicks".

Its not a matter of "He called me weirdo first." Its a matter of, "He showed up to my place of business to harass me for weeks." which is a different matter all together. You might correct me if I'm wrong, I could be misremembering as its been a long time, but didn't Monty come out prior to all this in support of trying to get Racket's disbarred as well? I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Monty wasn't just being a little weird, but was outright malicious.

Its also worth remembering that the entire joke of Monty being Nick's "Government Assigned Retard" comes from the fact that this isn't even the first instance of Montagraph targeting Nick specifically. This is all shit a good defense would bring up in this case. Its targeted online harassment from a rather unlikable individual who seems very likely to have either directly fucked or at least simulated sexual acts on a water melon.

"Do you the people of the Jury find it reasonable that someone should be able to come up to you, at your place of business, daily for weeks at a time and try to provoke you into a confrontation, and then in a moment of weakness when you aren't sober, should you rise to their provocations, that that person then be able to sue you and hold you accountable in spite of their prolonged actions leading up to that encounter?"

That's not an easy sell to make, and I'm sure the autists here at the farms (God bless you all), are perfectly right in their understanding of the legalities involved, however I think the short sightedness comes from the jury factor here: You have to convince normal people, who will not research this case as thoroughly as you all have, and do not have the time nor interest to do arm chair law work as the people here will, that one man is guilty of defamation against someone who repeatedly provoked him at his place of business for weeks on multiple occasions.

I don't know about you, I don't even need to know he fucked a water melon to rule against Monty when its phrased like that.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Namely, showing up in every single one of Nick's streams for like weeks prior to talk shit and try to provoke him. This is purely a layman's take here, but if I'm on a jury and I find out that the plantiff in a civil case, alleging defamation showed up nightly to the defendant's place of business and tried to provoke a reaction out of him (which Monty did do), I wouldn't consider anything that happened as a result of that provocation to be defamatory.

Are you forgetting that Nick continually called him a retard and even had a joke about Monty being his assigned retard for his business, it wasn't Monty just going at Nick, it was a back and forth.

Interestingly, this is something the judge noted too:

I don't necessarily think this removes Nick's liability on defamation, but this would be something that's relevant in Jury deliberation over damages.

The "He called me a weirdo first!" defense doesn't work when you call someone a pedophile and there is no real substance to the claim with more than a little checking. We're not even talking about "this guy seems like he might be a pedo" levels of shit talk, Nick specifically said that Monty likes to "suck little boy dicks".

Tbf, Monty wasn't any better later with the whole "Nick is running a criminal enterprise which hangs Niggers" shit he put in his discovery plan. I'm taking every opportunity to mention this because I find it funny.

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

Tbf, Monty wasn't any better later with the whole "Nick is running a criminal enterprise which hangs Niggers" shit he put in his discovery plan. I'm taking every opportunity to mention this because I find it funny.

Nick is more based than I thought. Maybe I should start watching him again lol.