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

[AnOminous]

That's fine and all, but he's not psychic. Once he's already been sued, it's far too late to try to get the legislature to do anything, because even if it could act that quickly, the lawsuit's already been filed and a new law probably wouldn't apply to it retroactively.

Doesn't matter. If it's the job of the legislature, it's not up to a court to do it, however assmad that makes someone making a ridiculous argument.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Effectively what you're saying is that back when the Minnesota Supreme Court found Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional, Nick should have began petitioning the Minnesota state legislature to pass a modified anti-SLAPP law, with key differences to fix the parts that were found to make the previous law unconstitutional, all because years later, Nick might end up getting sued and want to have the case dismissed.

That's fine and all, but he's not psychic. Once he's already been sued, it's far too late to try to get the legislature to do anything, because even if it could act that quickly, the lawsuit's already been filed and a new law probably wouldn't apply to it retroactively.

Well, then he's going to going to need to really dig deep for the fight all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court to change the standard from Baker.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Doesn't matter. If it's the job of the legislature, it's not up to a court to do it, however assmad that makes someone making a ridiculous argument.

The Colorado legislature did do it though. If there's a plausible reason why Minnesota courts should defer to the Colorado legislature, rather than the Minnesota legislature, then it's not a ridiculous argument. It might be a long shot, but not a ridiculous one.

Obviously they could still find that the Colorado law can't be applied in Minnesota, if it's unconstitutional in Minnesota, but in that case, asking the Minnesota legislation to pass the same unconstitutional law would be retarded. Literally yes just ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to change its mind.

Well, then he's going to going to need to really dig deep for the fight all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court to change the standard from Baker.

I was talking about the Minnesota constitution, not the US constitution. The argument is "Minnesota found Minnesota law unconstitutional because reason. Colorado law should apply to this case, and reason doesn't apply to the applicable Colorado law, so there's no reason to presume it's unconstitutional in Minnesota."

You've got major hurdles to overcome to get the court to agree "Colorado law should apply" and "reason doesn't apply", but it's a plausible argument.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

The Colorado legislature did do it though. If there's a plausible reason why Minnesota courts should defer to the Colorado legislature, rather than the Minnesota legislature, then it's not a ridiculous argument. It might be a long shot, but not a ridiculous one.

Colorado does not have jurisdiction in Minnesota.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Colorado does not have jurisdiction in Minnesota.

Colorado has jurisdiction over retards who live in Colorado, though. Possibly even when they try to evade Colorado's jurisdiction by filing their lolsuits in other venues, like Minnesota.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Colorado has jurisdiction over retards who live in Colorado, though. Possibly even when they try to evade Colorado's jurisdiction by filing their lolsuits in other venues, like Minnesota.

The alleged offending speech happened in Minnesota, and it was spoken by a Minnesotan. If it's not a federal case, Minnesota should have jurisdiction over it. The location of the aggrieved party is almost irrelevant, except maybe as an argument for Federal, since both parties aren't in MN.

Edit: one could maybe make an argument for Texas, since that's where Rekieta Media is based out of. But they still aren't listed as a defendant, for whatever dumb fuck reason, and Rekieta Law LLC still appears to be defunct.

 

[Kosher Salt]

The alleged offending speech happened in Minnesota, and it was spoken by a Minnesotan. If it's not a federal case, Minnesota should have jurisdiction over it. The location of the aggrieved party is almost irrelevant, except maybe as an argument for Federal, since both parties aren't in MN.

The speech happened "in" Minnesota, but it was broadcast worldwide. And the damage allegedly occurred to a resident of Colorado.

Also the resident of Colorado felt like he needed to claim like he did some type of business in Minnesota, in order to claim to have standing there, but that sounded pretty obviously like bullshit.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

The speech happened "in" Minnesota, but it was broadcast worldwide. And the damage allegedly occurred to a resident of Colorado.

Also the resident of Colorado felt like he needed to claim like he did some type of business in Minnesota, in order to claim to have standing there, but that sounded pretty obviously like bullshit.

There are several lines of argument for a change of venue. So far, Balldoman has opted to take none of them, instead trying a novel approach to import another state law into MN. Appeals are for losers, and I would argue interlocutory appeals are for the foolish loser.

Others have spoken up thread about wisdom of trying to import the SLAPP into MN, so I won't beat a dead horse. From the outside looking in, Nose has taken the most LOL approach possible. And for that, I laugh.

 

[Swole McPole]

Also the resident of Colorado felt like he needed to claim like he did some type of business in Minnesota, in order to claim to have standing there, but that sounded pretty obviously like bullshit.

Would that be a bigger or a smaller pile of bullshit than Rekieta claiming he does some kind of business in Texas? My money is on smaller.

I'm curious about Monty's obligation in response to this appeal. Is he going to have to have Schnieder produce a response to it? And if Nick's appeal fails (as it surely must for it is clearly retarded), will Rekieta have to stump up and pay Monty's costs?

Given Rekieta's new found enthusiasm for SLAPP, if he loses he should pay those costs whether he's obliged to or not. It's just the morally consistent thing to do. Rich lawyer attempting to stop a poor artist from seeking recourse for defamation and running up his costs by appealing every little bullshit decision that goes against him?

If he likes SLAPP so much, he should be buying Schneider his own mustang out of the costs.

 

[Kosher Salt]

There are several lines of argument for a change of venue. So far, Balldoman has opted to take none of them, instead trying a novel approach to import another state law into MN.

The forum defendant rule makes it impossible to remove to federal court. I'm not sure what other lines of argument exist.

Would that be a bigger or a smaller pile of bullshit than Rekieta claiming he does some kind of business in Texas? My money is on smaller.

I'm curious about Monty's obligation in response to this appeal. Is he going to have to have Schnieder produce a response to it? And if Nick's appeal fails (as it surely must for it is clearly retarded), will Rekieta have to stump up and pay Monty's costs?

In order:

Bigger. Having a registered corporation in a state is more significant than allegedly having some incidental business with a corporation that's registered in the state.

Schneider can respond to the appeal, but appeals are for losers, so he's not exactly required to respond. He could respond or he could not.

Costs are almost never guaranteed under the American court system. Unless a specific law (like TCPA) says they are. But luckily in this case, TCPA got gtfo'd. Literally zero chance that Nick pays Monty's costs on appeal.

 

[AnOminous]

Colorado does not have jurisdiction in Minnesota.

They do under their long-arm statute, just like other states.

But this isn't about jurisdiction, it's about "comity" and other factors. Colorado might have had jurisdiction over a case actually filed against Nick in Colorado, though. I think personal jurisdiction over Nick is pretty weak.

That's another reason the argument Colorado law should apply is weak. Colorado has very little interest in how a defamation case goes in Minnesota.

That's an entirely different thing, though.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Just as an extremely brief and inadequate analysis, I think we can agree there is a conflict of laws between the states. Colorado has a SLAPP statute, Minnesota threw their own out as unconstitutional. Then, though, we get to the next issue, which is whether Colorado's law can be constitutionally applied. I think it's similar enough to the one Minnesota threw out that no, it can't.

So we wouldn't even get to the intensely gnarly multifactor balancing test. IMO. Even assuming the appeals court hears it at all, which I don't think it will. If they do it will be because it does at least implicate a constitutional issue, and they might have to decide the choice-of-law issue just to decide not to hear it.

I don't see how you thread the needle between the anti-SLAPP not being unconstitutional in Minnesota while also providing some sort of immunity from suit such that they can reach for the interlocutory appeal option. If the anti-SLAPP is providing any immunity, it's a very limited immunity of not having to endure the cost of trial, but violating the plaintiff's right to a jury trial is why MN's anti-SLAPP was ruled unconstitutional.

This all seems like a gargantuan waste of time and money to me.

 

[Swole McPole]

Bigger. Having a registered corporation in a state is more significant than allegedly having some incidental business with a corporation that's registered in the state.

Normally, I'd think this would make absolute sense. But it doesn't seem to make any sense at all in this case. It wasn't Nick's corporation that defamed Monty. It wasn't one of his employees, so someone's suing the company. It was Nick that did it.

If Monty had chosen to sue his Texas corporation, because that's where Nick hides all the money or something, (Did Monty co-named his law firm or something?) I suppose it might make sense to make a fuss about that somehow. But Nick did it in Minnesota -- the state where he lives and works. I get that people live to try and have cases moved to places where it's most advantageous but it's just plain perverse to think it should be tried elsewhere.

But courts regularly make decisions I find perverse.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

Maybe drive up the costs for Montegraph so he runs out of money and has to drop the case?

I don't think Monte is spending money at this point. I still think Schneider is trying to do this on contingency. The appeal will probably cause problems since Schneider is going to have to spend real time and resources from his firm on this. I doubt his partner is going to be cool with the loss of billable hours over this case

 

[feral cat #6385]

I don't think Monte is spending money at this point. I still think Schneider is trying to do this on contingency. The appeal will probably cause problems since Schneider is going to have to spend real time and resources from his firm on this. I doubt his partner is going to be cool with the loss of billable hours over this case

(1) There's no proof of that other than drunken rumblings made by Nick, an unreliable narrator.
(2) Schneider's partner probably hates Nick just as much as Schneider does.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

(2) Schneider's partner probably hates Nick just as much as Schneider does.

This is my theory, the Rekietas are not liked in the local area. Unreliable narrators have said as much in the past. May not be universal, as for example, they seem to still be in their home school co-op.

If Monty had chosen to sue his Texas corporation, because that's where Nick hides all the money or something, (Did Monty co-named his law firm or something?)

Monty / Schneider sued Rackets personally and his lawfirm LLC. His lawfirm's LLC has lapsed (in MN), which probably isn't a huge deal but does muddy the waters.

As mentioned above, Rekieta Media LLC is active (although it had lapsed during this suit) in Texas, his registered agent for it is Ty Beard.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't see how you thread the needle between the anti-SLAPP not being unconstitutional in Minnesota while also providing some sort of immunity from suit such that they can reach for the interlocutory appeal option.

I fully agree, although there's a slight paradox in that there needs to be a decision about why they don't need to make a decision. I expect a curt refusal to hear it anyway though. Even if they do I would be surprised if there is very lengthy of a decision. I still look forward to seeing what Randazza (or whoever) throws down.

Hey, maybe there is a non-cockamamie argument I am too dumb to think of.

The appeal will probably cause problems since Schneider is going to have to spend real time and resources from his firm on this.

Unless this is some genius play and they actually grant the petition to hear the case, it could be a situation where literally doing nothing is a proper response until required to do something.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

(1) There's no proof of that other than drunken rumblings made by Nick, an unreliable narrator.
(2) Schneider's partner probably hates Nick just as much as Schneider does.

I doubt Schneider is less than $350/hour and he's easily put in 20 hours on this by now and the appeal is going to eat up a decent amount of time as well.

Nick isn't the only one setting piles of money on fire if the appeal happens.

Unless this is some genius play and they actually grant the petition to hear the case, it could be a situation where literally doing nothing is a proper response until required to do something.

I fully agree. They can afford to wait and see if the appeal is granted, but there might be some discussions if they have to prepare a brief.

 

[feral cat #6385]

Unless this is some genius play and they actually grant the petition to hear the case, it could be a situation where literally doing nothing is a proper response until required to do something.

So far this is shaping up beautifully. Nick is driving up his own costs. It would be a real shame if his contracts aren't renewed. He might have to sell a house and the balldo mobile. Nobody fucks Nick Rekieta as good as Nick Rekieta.

 

[elb]

Edit: Monty’s GFM