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

[AnOminous]

To sum up and tidy of this mess of a comment into something approaching an actual point, courts hate IIED, and they hate Defamation with IIED more. False statements rarely amount to IIED, and true statements never.

Excellent summation of the IIED tort and its essential worthlessness, as requiring conduct

It does want to hear the appeal. The appellate court concluded that they have jurisdiction to hear it.

As I pointed out earlier, the choice-of-law issue governs the jurisdictional issue, so it's in a somewhat paradoxical situation where the appeals court has to have jurisdiction merely to decide whether it has jurisdiction. A more cynical person than I might conclude that Randazza chose this type of argument because it would force appellate arguments about an obvious issue, just through its novelty.

I am not such a cynic, although others may disagree.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

Monty and his lawyer run on the novel theory that only Nick has evidence of Monty’s emotional distress damages, and that’s why they need discovery. You can read the hearing transcript, that’s literally their argument

God damn, that's genius.

Of Monty's lawyer to be able to bill for that.

Although who the fuck knows, since lolsuits seem to get judges nearly as insane as their petitioners. It's so stupid it just might work.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

God damn, that's genius.

Of Monty's lawyer to be able to bill for that.

The genius part is whoever one of them convinced the other that this totally could work.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

I would almost say that never happens but then there was that Romeo Lacoste idiot who hired an even bigger idiot as a lawyer who sued for being called a pedophile and his lawyer admitted he actually was one in his filing.

TIL Nick Rekieta defended Romeo Lacoste.

 

[AnOminous]

I can understand how being called a pedophile would be distressing irrespective of truth, but if it is true then I would argue that's on the plaintiff for being a diddler and not on the defendant for bringing it to light.

Truthfully saying that is protected by the First Amendment and can't be punished by a court.

IIED has to be unprotected behavior. I believe Minnesota still uses the Second Restatement definition: “(1) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (3) it must cause emotional distress; and (4) the distress must be severe.”

Calling an actual pedophile a pedophile would not be extreme or outrageous, but a public service. Since it doesn't have the first element, none of the others matter, no matter how much emotional distress results.

Falsely calling someone could be the basis for such a suit but defamation by itself is unlikely to rise to that level. Courts want to see something akin to actual physical harm requiring medical attention. Not even the Phelps clan could be held liable for IIED even for picketing a veteran's funeral, calling him a "faggot" (which he wasn't) and hurling vile insults at the surviving relatives.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

The genius part is whoever one of them convinced the other that this totally could work.

So many times I think that, and then Derek Chauvin goes to prison despite the medical examiners’ report showing zero damage to Floyd’s neck and him having over a lethal amount of fentanyl in his system

 

[Useful_Mistake]

New update on the district and the appellate level:
View attachment 5465316
View attachment 5465318

Interestingly, the description was updated.

Friday:

Today:



What this means is that the Electronic record was submitted to Minnesota Digital Exhibit System

 

[JoeBidenSniffMe]

It looks like it's happened: Rekieta has apparently started a GiveSendGo with a goal of $50,000 entitled "Fighting Bogus Lawsuit from Insane Moron":

View attachment 4781516
GiveSendGo | Archive

Rekieta has retweeted a bunch of other people promoting this page, so it looks real.

Will it's official. Montagraph has officially raised $13,000 on GoFundMe and while Rekieta has been stuck with only $12,259 for a month and has not reach his goal of $50,000 goal.

 

[Swole McPole]

Will it's official. Montagraph has officially raised $13,000 on GoFundMe and while Rekieta has been stuck with only $12,259 for a month and has not reach his goal of $50,000 goal.

I see that when this cunt started his begging campaign, he was still describing himself as a 'small law firm' in Northern Minnesota.

What a shame Eric July wasn't faster off the mark. When Rekieta started to insinuate that he was lying about his charitable fund raising, July should have come right back at him with questions about his 'small' law firm.

"How small is it, Nick?"
"How many staff do you employ?"
"When did you last handle a paid case?"
"What was your gross income from legal fees for the last year? Last five years?"
"Why is it you think I'm obliged to reveal the details of my business dealings to you, but you aren't prepared to be anything like as transparent about this shit as I am?"
"GoFundMe is a form of charitable donation. Aren't you blatantly lying about being a law firm? You do no legal practice? You haven't practiced law for years. You're deliberately and fraudulently misrepresenting who and what you are to your donor base. What do you think the IRS would make of this? Aren't you obliged to refund these donations?"

I guess July just felt too deferential to his white massa.

 

[AnOminous]

I guess July just felt too deferential to his white massa.

That's the kind of gotcha Nick would go for. The one thing he's retained from his legal education is slithering like a snake and pulling glib gotchas to throw someone who isn't that verbal off their game.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

That's the kind of gotcha Nick would go for. The one thing he's retained from his legal education is slithering like a snake and pulling glib gotchas to throw someone who isn't that verbal off their game.

I’m sure the whole wet brained thing bothers him about himself on some level, and gotchas are like evidence/placebo that he’s still “sharp.”

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Just because I got curious myself, I am posting this here.

Montagraph had until the 22nd of this month to reply to Nick’s appellate brief as per Minnesota’s civil rules of appellate procedure rule 131.01 subdivision 2. Montagraph doesn’t actually have to reply (Rule 128.02 subdivision 2, rule 141.02 subdivision 2), but he loses his right to oral arguments (unless he gets permission from the court)

 

[AnOminous]

Just because I got curious myself, I am posting this here.

Montagraph had until the 22nd of this month to reply to Nick’s appellate brief as per Minnesota’s civil rules of appellate procedure rule 131.01 subdivision 2. Montagraph doesn’t actually have to reply (Rule 128.02 subdivision 2, rule 141.02 subdivision 2), but he loses his right to oral arguments (unless he gets permission from the court)

Probably an economic decision. It's an arcane argument that would take a considerable amount of research to address, while at the same time having a very low likelihood of success even unopposed.

Considering Nick's "run 'em out of money" strategy, this robs him of the outcome he wanted. He blew probably tens of thousands to cost Monty at most a couple thousand. Maybe that kind of strategy makes sense if you're Microsoft or Scientology, but Nick isn't.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Probably an economic decision

I mean, he still has 11 days. We’ll see

 

[AnOminous]

I mean, he still has 11 days. We’ll see

Oh I thought you meant the 22nd of last month. I can honestly see no response or a perfunctory response being the right move here.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Oh I thought you meant the 22nd of last month. I can honestly see no response or a perfunctory response being the right move here.

Then I expect Monty files a response, because that would be the stupid thing to do, and everyone involved in this is stupid.

 

[Nova902]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GthnlzL5lv4&t=171s Marc Randazza talking about Nicks case and how bad he is fucking nick with billable hours lol He also lies to everyone and doesn't tell them what Nick really said.
Marc said Monty will take everything from Nick lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdmDKVHnX1o&t=30s This appeals case in Minnesota is the nail in the coffin for Nick. Funny he nor his high priced lawyer have reviewed it yet.

Didn't Rekieta call one of Randazza's partners, and I quote..."A Fucking Faggot"? Is there really a bridge there? Randazza is a 1st Amendment Lawyer, and that means he is a Politician First, and a Lawyer Second. I seriously doubt he's going to hitch his wagon to a drunk hedonist.

Randazza wanted to legalize child porn

 

[Useful_Mistake]

He also lies to everyone and doesn't tell them what Nick really said.
Marc said Monty will take everything from Nick lol

You know, perhaps, just perhaps, you shouldn't do the things you are accusing others of doing? While the former is certainly true (a lie by ommision is still considered a lie), the latter is completely false. Randazza didn't say that about Nick. By that point (as the clip shows), the talk turned to hypotheticals, i.e. what if a person subject to a SLAPP lawsuit doesn't defend himself.

This appeals case in Minnesota is the nail in the coffin for Nick.

Heavily disagree. This case is AMAZING for Nick. At nearly every junction and opportunity the appellate court limited the amount of recovery of presumed, special, and punitive damages. This is great for Nick. They ruled that:

• In so far as special damages are concerned, if others have previously called you (and you are known) by the defamation, it is not wrong for the court to overrule jury assigned damages. Both Nick and Monty agree that Monty has a long history of being known as a pedophile. As this case shows, that history need not be factual (that is to say, people may be calling you a pedo for other reasons than molesting children) for this to work in Nick's favor
  
  
• In so far as Punitive Damages are concerned, not every Defamation per se claim warrants them (very good for Nick). Again, like above, the appellate court concludes that preexisting history of defamation can allow the court to overrule Jury verdict. Again, considering the facts in this case, massive for Nick.
  
  
  
• And in so far as presumed damages go, they cannot be so big as to exceed actual injury. Considering the facts of the case (like the fact that Monty still hasn't found a single cent of damages), this is great for Nick
  
  

Now, granted, Nick already spent 400k on this case, which in itself is a massive loss for Nick, but this case you cite is not really bad for Nick. I'd argue it could prove useful indeed.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Nick already spent 400k on this case

This made my day. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, no wonder he can’t stand being sober.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

This made my day. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, no wonder he can’t stand being sober.

That’s actually my bad. He said 40 grand, I just rewatched the video to make sure. Though, IIRC the estimated figures by the Farmers are higher.