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.
I feel like Monty's attorney started off pretty weak, but evened out, though he did sound nervous/scared. I feel like the judges were a lot harsher on him than on Randazza, He, if nothing else, sounded somewhat charismatic, but you could clearly sense and hear a sense of self righteous superiority. Seemed a bit like he was talking down to the judges as if they were mere stalker children
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: koos koets, Thoughtcrime84, Turbo Hornbag Hervez and 3 others
Unsurprisingly, Randazza had a much more polished presentation, and I think Monty's lawyer missed a really important issue on the forum-shopping thing, that being that it is not forum-shopping to file somewhere that has jurisdiction instead of somewhere that doesn't.
Useful_Mistake said:
I feel like the judges were a lot harsher on him than on Randazza
Click to expand...
I think they were actually being fairly indulgent with his obvious relative lack of experience in appellate court. By the end they were throwing him softballs for minutes after his time had expired.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: koos koets, Turbo Hornbag Hervez, Kosher Salt and 6 others
Useful_Mistake said:
I feel like Monty's attorney started off pretty weak, but evened out, though he did sound nervous/scared. I feel like the judges were a lot harsher on him than on Randazza, He, if nothing else, sounded somewhat charismatic, but you could clearly sense and hear a sense of self righteous superiority. Seemed a bit like he was talking down to the judges as if they were mere stalker children
Click to expand...
The one thing I didn't like about Randazza's argument was the assertion that what Monty did was "foreign shopping".

Monty didn't really do that. He sued in Minnesota, where the defendant is. Which is usually perfectly acceptable unless there are some extremely extenuating circumstances. This isn't an argument about where to file, its an argument about what law needs to apply. Where was the injury? The can of worms involved with this though is that defamation and the internet is a wobbly sort of thing.

Sean seems to think that the court will just say "sure, Colorado law applies. This is still defamation. SLAPP denied".

Either way, this whole SLAPP fight has been a spectacular waste of money.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Pedophobe, koos koets, The Mass Shooter Ron Soye and 6 others
Opinions from the viewers:

Screenshot 2024-02-28 190424.png
Screenshot 2024-02-28 190530.png
Screenshot 2024-02-28 190549.png
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: The Mass Shooter Ron Soye, Turbo Hornbag Hervez, AmateurComedicTaxidermist and 10 others
I also feel like it's fair enough to sue the guy doing the big crime in the place where he lives and did the big crime. But it feels like it could go either way depending on wether or not they want to take a particular stand to be harsh against any inkling of forum shopping for future reference.

Monty's lawyer seemed nice enough, he was a bit hesitant but to me the judges didn't seem to dislike him. Some people might like that more than the slick big city lawyer rocking up. But I do feel it got more complex than he would've wanted. Also having to raise the speaking podium because you're taller than your manlet opponent is 1-0.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Exterminatus, Neetorino, BULLY HUNTER_78 and 1 other person
Thing is, if they find anti-SLAPP a procedural rule (which a majority of federal courts have found under the Erie doctrine in diversity cases) rather than a substantive law (since all states have some equivalent of 12(b)(6) or 56), then it wouldn't apply at all.

And even Randazza conceded that Monty would be entitled to discovery, at least if he showed some justification for it (a very low bar). I'm not sure what Nick wins even if Nick wins (which seems highly possible at this point). One of the most important parts of anti-SLAPP is not having to go through discovery.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: koos koets, Bush did USS Maine, Botchy Galoop and 8 others
mindlessobserver said:
The one thing I didn't like about Randazza's argument was the assertion that what Monty did was "foreign shopping".

Monty didn't really do that. He sued in Minnesota, where the defendant is. Which is usually perfectly acceptable unless there are some extremely extenuating circumstances. This isn't an argument about where to file, its an argument about what law needs to apply. Where was the injury? The can of worms involved with this though is that defamation and the internet is a wobbly sort of thing.

Sean seems to think that the court will just say "sure, Colorado law applies. This is still defamation. SLAPP denied".

Either way, this whole SLAPP fight has been a spectacular waste of money.
Click to expand...

Useful_Mistake said:
Opinions from the viewers:

View attachment 5764897
View attachment 5764899
View attachment 5764900
Click to expand...
This is what gets my blood boiling over our incredibly broken court system. The most expensive lawyer looks like he's going to win, regardless of the merits of the case. The forum shopping argument is such bullshit. Rekieta was in Minnasota when he made the defamatory remarks.

It amazes me that an entire panel of judges can be chewbacca defensed into forgetting that calling someone is a pedo is defamation per se and Rekieta made the defamatory remarks in Minnasota.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Turbo Hornbag Hervez and feral cat #6385
AnOminous said:
And even Randazza conceded that Monty would be entitled to discovery, at least if he showed some justification for it (a very low bar). I'm not sure what Nick wins even if Nick wins (which seems highly possible at this point).
Click to expand...
He could CONCEIVABLY win the fee shifting provision of the SLAPP. But...why? Monty probably can't pay it. Rackets will still be out all this money. Judicial Economy says this entire argument is stupid. The win will still be a loss. ALL of this money spent arguing over which States law should apply could have been spent getting rid of the case all together.

Which is why Seans projected ending is so funny. Rackets spends tens of thousands of dollars to win on a point of order, gets Colorado law applied to his case, and then loses the SLAPP motion.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: koos koets, Turbo Hornbag Hervez, Kosher Salt and 8 others
BULLY HUNTER_78 said:
It amazes me that an entire panel of judges can be chewbacca defensed into forgetting that calling someone is a pedo is defamation per se and Rekieta made the defamatory remarks in Minnasota.
Click to expand...
One of the judges did point out that usually (federally) you sue in your backyard, or using your backyard's laws. That's not Chewbacca defense, that's just the actual experience of the judge who spent most of his practice in federal courts (or so he claims). Other judges didn't seem to contest that either.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: feral cat #6385, Kosher Salt, Exterminatus and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back