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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Swole McPole said:
That said, in an era when even the things that used to be the papers of record are full of lies and propaganda, why would you expect Joe Blow's website to be any better?
Click to expand...
It just doesn't pass the smell test. It reads like the rantings of some guy he buttfucked savagely in court, rather than a jilted client.

Anyway it cites avvo, which notes his history of discipline, but from his avvo reviews, his clients seem to be satisfied with his representation. Other than that porno company for obvious reasons.
Screenshot 2023-08-13 195957.png
Avvo itself downgrades him probably because of fairly alarming ethics violations.

But sometimes you want a lawyer who is willing to get a little dirty.

My only caveat (other than the obvious price one) is research it if there's a potential conflict of interest. He's one of those no conflict, no interest guys.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Marvin, TexOffender, Kosher Salt and 3 others
AnOminous said:
It just doesn't pass the smell test. It reads like the rantings of some guy he buttfucked savagely in court, rather than a jilted client.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I assumed that. Why else would you go to the trouble of making a website about him?

His clients do appear to be happy with his representation, but I'm sceptical -- for two reasons.

a.) Nobody gets all five star reviews. Humans being as difficult as they are, you're bound to have clashes of personality. They tend to play out in bad reviews. It's not fair, but it happens.

b.) The mad guy who created the website claims he's gaming the reviews. I have no idea if this is true or not, but I wouldn't trust somebody who would seek bribes from their clients opponents NOT to pull a stroke like that.

There was a guy who gave him one star and said he only seemed interested in his fees. That review rang true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheTimeWizard
AnOminous said:
But sometimes you want a lawyer who is willing to get a little dirty.

My only caveat (other than the obvious price one) is research it if there's a potential conflict of interest. He's one of those no conflict, no interest guys.
Click to expand...
There's dirty, and then there's dirty to the point you fuck your client.

I dunno if that's gonna happen here but, thus far, it seems Randazza has burned an awful lot of money with little to show for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beautiful person
Captain Manning said:
I dunno if that's gonna happen here but, thus far, it seems Randazza has burned an awful lot of money with little to show for it.
Click to expand...
I don't think one can blame him in good faith for chargin a lot in this dumpster fire case. As far as I can tell, he is an actual expert and those cost a lot of money. It's retarded to hire him for that job, but that is hardly his problem.

Plus, there's also the possibility that Nick overstated the cost to motivate the pay piggies. But who knows.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: waffle
I think the problem with hiring Randazza (beyond the cost, obviously) is that culturally his style seems to be the opposite of what you would want in a case like this taking place in a rural county in Nowhere, MN.

There are only a handful of judges in Kandiyohi and thus I'm guessing Schneider has gone before this judge countless times. Meanwhile Nick hires a flashy Vegas-based attorney. Retaining Randazza fits with the image Nick has been trying to portray of himself as a rich playboy e-celeb who has tons of monogamous fun, but there's clearly a culture clash and I don't see his style going down super well with a rural jury. Just my opinion.

I would have figured out the most prominent attorney who practices at least semi-regularly in Kandiyohi (I don't know who that is, but Nick really ought to) and gone with them.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Pedophobe, Yandex Captcha Solver, waffle and 4 others
Balldo's Gate said:
I think the problem with hiring Randazza (beyond the cost, obviously) is that culturally his style seems to be the opposite of what you would want in a case like this taking place in a rural county in Nowhere, MN.

There are only a handful of judges in Kandiyohi and thus I'm guessing Schneider has gone before this judge countless times. Meanwhile Nick hires a flashy Vegas-based attorney. Retaining Randazza fits with the image Nick has been trying to portray of himself as a rich playboy e-celeb who has tons of monogamous fun, but there's clearly a culture clash and I don't see his style going down super well with a rural jury. Just my opinion.

I would have figured out the most prominent attorney who practices at least semi-regularly in Kandiyohi (I don't know who that is, but Nick really ought to) and gone with them.
Click to expand...
from the various trials i've watched with and without lawtube commentary, i didn't see anyone say "well shucks, i'm not a big city lawyer like the other guy but..."
 
Captain Manning said:
There's dirty, and then there's dirty to the point you fuck your client.

I dunno if that's gonna happen here but, thus far, it seems Randazza has burned an awful lot of money with little to show for it.
Click to expand...
Nick is the idiot who put a pile of money on the floor and doused it with gasoline and then told Randazza, light it up.

He's doing what he was paid to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Botchy Galoop, Your Favorite New Friend, John Andrews Stan and 2 others
Swole McPole said:
I'd never really paid any attention to any of this while it was happening, so I googled it.

There's a very helpful website, Corrupt Marc Randazza, that lays out the various complaints and judgements against him
Click to expand...

It looks like shit, but considering Maddox's lawyer has his own Website of Disrepute (one that at least copies some of the transcripts, specifiically for the DUIs in Michigan), we once again come full-circle with Nick's rise and fall. No wonder he hates Eastern Storytelling and its circular nature so much, it's literally happening to him in the moment.

oh no its pipkun said:
from the various trials i've watched with and without lawtube commentary, i didn't see anyone say "well shucks, i'm not a big city lawyer like the other guy but..."
Click to expand...
The only time I've heard it was in the Gwenyth Paltrow vs Terry Sandersen trial (about running into each other while skiing, Terry lost), timestamp for the Emily D. Baker stream for it is here at 2:59:37. I believe he said it twice, but I'm not watching through anymore of that. Couldn't believe the meme was made reality, but that's the world now, apparently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swole McPole
Useful_Mistake said:
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)
Click to expand...
I'm not looking for best legal argument. No, I'm looking for maximum lols.
I want Ty to take it up to SCOTUS and get them all the first appellate death penalty for laughs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL
Nick has filed notice for appeal on the July 11th decision.

1694140405254.png
1694140428236.png
 

Attachments

  • Informative
  • Lunacy
  • Like
Reactions: 6thRanger, jalopy, Harvey Danger and 18 others
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Late
Reactions: Chief Ungo Bungo, Puff, John Andrews Stan and 18 others
Dumpster dived waifu said:
Can someone that has slept and isn't retarded explain what this means to someone that is both of the aforementioned?
Click to expand...
Tired retard here, but I believe this means they're attempting to ask a second court's opinion on the judge's most recent ruling that the Colorado law wasn't applicable and that there wouldn't be a summary judgment. Essentially seeing if they can go over her head and throw this whole suit out now.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Botchy Galoop
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back