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

[DiggieSmalls]

Watching the Elisa Clips video on the hearing and Nick is losing this.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

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.

I think it would be reasonable to depose him to ask exactly what his basis for his statement was, because according to the actual malice standard, a subjective doubt of the truthfulness of his claims is needed. So considering Monty would have to prove that if the case went to trial, anything that would go to his state of mind should be subject to discovery.

How is Nick going to get this anti-SLAPP law applied in his favor AFTER discovery? They can't be so stupid to not depose Nick and ask him what the basis of his claim was. Based on what he has said in the over a year since being sued, he doesn't really have one beyond vague rumors he heard online at the very best.

He might have been able to play it off as a joke or something nobody would take seriously because of how drunk he was (Randazza's filings kind of imply that by noting how long he had been drinking) but legal eagle genius Nick Rekieta decided to repeatedly double and triple down on the statements over the course of 2023 talking about how he sees no reason to retract his comments.

I guess Nick really is a free speech guy willing to work towards setting case law in Minnesota, because I can't imagine how this appeal helps him at all even if he wins. My question is: was Nick even aware of this? He sure seemed to think he was going to get out of discovery.

 

[feral cat #6385]

I guess Nick was too busy anal healing from all the L's he's been taking to go to the oral hearing.

 

[AnOminous]

Edit to add: this is not a surprise, Matt has been on the paperwork (once Balldoman got representation), but it's another interesting wrinkle in the money pit this trial is probably proving to be for Balldoman.

He appeared to be actually participating, looking up cases for rebuttal while Monty's lawyer was arguing.

It isn't actually surprising he'd show up, considering if you sign off on someone's p.h.v. you're on the hook for what they do. He has a vested interest in things going well.

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

Loved how Josh explained what he would do to Vito if Joe Biden convicted him.

He has that little Vito speech perfectly encoded in his brain. I think he's given it at least two, maybe three times.

 

[RodgerDodger]

I think it would be reasonable to depose him to ask exactly what his basis for his statement was, because according to the actual malice standard, a subjective doubt of the truthfulness of his claims is needed. So considering Monty would have to prove that if the case went to trial, anything that would go to his state of mind should be subject to discovery.

I mean they need Discovery to confirm he was Blackout Drunk and his state of mind was inebriated past the point of rational thought?

 

[Space Pope]

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

One would hope that the judges are beyond politics but I don't think the flashy out of state lawyer notable for defending people like Alex Jones did any favors with the panel. All 3 of those judges, (Presiding Judge Larson, Judge Ede, Judge Reyes, Jr.) were appointed by Democrat governors.

 

[AnOminous]

One would hope that the judges are beyond politics but I don't think the flashy out of state lawyer notable for defending people like Alex Jones did any favors with the panel. All 3 of those judges, (Presiding Judge Larson, Judge Ede, Judge Reyes, Jr.) were appointed by Democrat governors.

They did their best to avoid a scene like this.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Cross-posting from the main Rekieta thread.

This is Nick in his YT chat last night. He is suddenly not so sure about ehat he said. If you recall, the qualifier of 'probably' was what he said to Null quite confidently before.

This might be an issue if Nick has to go past discovery. He bad better hope he wins a SLAAP motion or he 'probably' will have to address this.


Credit to @elb for the original

 

[AnOminous]

This is Nick in his YT chat last night. He is suddenly not so sure about ehat he said. If you recall, the qualifier of 'probably' was what he said to Null quite confidently before.

What an utter lying sack. It isn't like there's video or anything.

 

[ShinyStar]

This is Nick in his YT chat last night. He is suddenly not so sure about ehat he said. If you recall, the qualifier of 'probably' was what he said to Null quite confidently before.

This might be an issue if Nick has to go past discovery. He bad better hope he wins a SLAAP motion or he 'probably' will have to address this.

Credit to @elb for the original

Nick knows full well that he did not qualify his statement, nor did he mean to qualify it and just forgot to because he was drunk. If he had meant to say 'probably,' and is still in this lawsuit because he is too stupid and lazy to go back and double check what his exact verbiage was, then he has wasted hundreds of thousand dollars over a little slip up that could have been corrected through two minutes of watching the video where he made that statement and then issuing a quick correction. That would be the stupidest, most expensive, laziest mistake I've ever witnessed, and Nick would deserve to lose everything as a result.

But we all know he knows what he said, because we know when he opens his mouth, lies come out.

 

[elb]

What an utter lying sack. It isn't like there's video or anything.

 

[waffle]

So Nick's deposition testimony is going to be "No, ive never watched a replay of that... I thought I said probably, I meant to say probably, I told everyone I said probably". And then randaza has to convince the jury that he didn't have the intent to defame and Nick was just too drunk and/or high to speak properly

You should definitely go to rehab, Nick. Start trying to give the story some level of sympathy instead of just convincing the jury your should be held accountable for being worthless.

 

[Iron Hamster]

What an utter lying sack. It isn't like there's video or anything.

no lolcow ever remembers that part.

 

[AnOminous]

View attachment 5772390

Am I deaf or something? Because I don't hear a "probably" anywhere in that. I hear a statement of fact followed by doubling down on it followed by daring the guy to sue him.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

View attachment 5772390

I love how Legal Mindset turns to look at the camera with an expression that screams "this is not going to end well". Smart man, knew it was best to stay quiet

 

[AnOminous]

Someone in the main Nickhole thread points out he did say "probably" but it was in relation to "he should probably be shot in the head."

 

[waffle]

He also expressly calls Monty a child molester. It's possible there's some case law that says that's an opinion statement, but in that context it sure seems like a further statement of fact or reiteration to me.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Ah yes, this is the usual quality, sane, wise legal counsel people come to Rekieta LAW for.