On the lower level Nick filled a special motion to dismiss, arguing that Colorado law (they are in Minessota, and no party lives in Colorado) should protect his right to accuse Montagraph of sucking dicks of children. When the court refused to apply Colorado law, Nick appealed. Appellate Court found limited jurisdiction, and the hearing on whether or not the decision to not apply Colorado law was right or not is on the 28th of this month.
Monty lives, or at least lived, in Colorado. In the filing, Monty's address was a Colorado address. This is how the whole idea of using Colorado law came into the picture. This is why, when Nicks'/Randazza's response to Monty's lawsuit asked for Colorado law be applied and Monty's response was that he had moved years beforehand but still received correspondence at an address within the state (including correspondence from his own lawyer), Nick went off on opposing council for lying within the filing.
When the lawsuit was filed he lived in Illinois. His lawyer admitted that he knowingly lied about it to both him and the court. To this day, as far as anyone can tell, this is an Illinois resident filing a lawsuit in Minnesota over comments owned by a Texas LLC, and as defense the defendants wish to use Colorado law.
Wait, he didn't?! That happened when I was still watching his show every now and then, and I thought that might have been the only W he might see in the case. When I didn't see anything come from it I just assumed that the judge just waved their hand and let Monty correct it, but Nick not even asking for sanctions is kind of mind-blowingly retarded... which I guess is to be expected from Nick at this point.
His lawyer did write a passive aggressive notice about it, but that's about it. No asking for sanctions, no request for leave to amend their arguments into something actually relevant, no nothing.
Remember, Nick's lawyer is deliberately sabotaging Nick's case for more money. When you realize that, all the stupid shit starts to make sense.
It’s great that Nick immediately found a high priced attorney that he’d already insulted one of the partners of the firm. You and I might think twice about hiring someone that may hate us, but we’re not social media and legal experts like Rekieta.
I'm not backing Rekieta, but Monty filed the lawsuit stating he was a Colorado resident, and THEN when the Anti-SLAPP issue came up, he amended his petition to state he is an Illinois resident. The problem with this is that he has never supplied proof of residency in Illinois, and everything else suggests he is still a resident of Colorado. I'm not cosigning on Rekieta's bullshit, but I disagree with your assertion that "as far as anyone can tell, this is an Illinois resident." I think everyone is lying here, and it's time to shine some light on all of it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
There is as much provided proof to the court of his Colorado residence, as is of his residence in Illinois, namely his lawyer said so. The operative complaint now asserts that the Plaintiff is in Illinois, and whether or not that is true, the facts in the Plaintiff's operative complaint are always going to be treated as true for the purposes of motion to dismiss (both general and special). Nick is therefore arguing non-relevant laws and caselaw, and hoping that the judge just doesn't point out that not a single one of his Colorado arguments seem to have any relevance.
If Montagraph is lying (given he has already lied once in the court, I wouldn't be surprised), what Nick needs to do is show that it is a lie, and ask the lie to be stricken and the liar sanctioned. For all intents and purposes, as the docket reflects now, this is a Illinois resident filing a lawsuit in Minnesota over comments owned by a Texas LLC, and as defense the defendants wish to use Colorado law.
Oh, so it’s just a cosmic swirl of autism and grift
Pretty much. I like my honest reaction to Randazza's appellate brief:
I hope Nick gets the same results Vic got on his lawsuits.
You've got to remember that Nick is actually a terrible lawyer.
I bet Razzledazzla enjoys that Nick calls himself a lawyer and still puts up with all of this
It is my opinion that if Nick wins on appeal, Judge will still dismiss his special motion to dismiss, for reasons laid out here:
I forgot all about this coming up.It's hard to tell looking from the outside, but that saga made me guess that he got an email or a phone call from the Rage Twig telling him that they have to do SOMETHING and he was able to talk him down into accepting a pointless letter instead of wasting energy on something more substantive.
It would go back to the district court judge who Nick previously cornered for an Elevator Talk (prototype for the legendary Shower Talks Nick later made famous) who would then need to decide if the case should be dismissed under Colorado's anti-SLAPP.
If you read what the judge wrote about summary judgment in this case and what Nick's side had to say about how similar the Colorado anti-SLAPP statute was to summary judgment to begin with, it would seem to be a big surprise if the judge granted it, unless Nick not only gets a favorable ruling but very favorable language that signals that the appellate court views this to be a frivolous lawsuit.
