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

[Swole McPole]

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

It's almost as though this fool didn't watch any of the Depp vs Heard trial. Because we all know Johnny Depp lives in Fairfax County, Virginia, right?

 

[Myrtle the Turtle]

All this talk about jurisdiction has me reminiscing the days when Darrell Brooks kept going on and on about "muh subject matter jurisdiction." Its a completely different topic, but they share the same words. It will never happen, but I would love to see Rekieta go full sovereign citizen, represent himself and make retarded oral arguments.

 

[Sneed S. McSneedensen]

I'm unconvinced, Nick.

tl;dr: If I'm on a jury and I hear person B(alldo) accused person A of being a pedophile, I'm ruling in favor of person A.

 

[genericwhitemale]

View attachment 5772029

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

He also said it a few weeks ago when he got a bunch of troll donos talking about the statement. It's definitely intentionally lying, when you consider how often it was brought up by Josh and others that, no, you said "Montograph has always been into sucking little boy cocks". He's just going to do the thing where he says something wrong, people correct him on it and he'll go "whatever, lmao, why do you care?"

 

[Your Starter for 10]

Well now I see the end of this. When it gets too financially painful, or too close to actual trial, Nick is going to settle, saying "OOOOOOH, I thought I said PROBABLY, which would be protected speech and totally not defamation, but I accidentally forgot to qualify it, so it MAY be defamation, which i didn't intend, so of course I'm going to settle."

Edit - stop giving me rainbows, I consider this the sad and least funny ending.

 

[Sneed S. McSneedensen]

So have they announced a date for Rekieta to give his public apology for being a gay faggot?

 

[AnOminous]

And here I thought something happened thanks to your borderline necrobump.

 

[Sam Losco]

Why is it taking so long for the appeals court to rule? Weren't oral arguments in Feb?

 

[AnOminous]

Why is it taking so long for the appeals court to rule? Weren't oral arguments in Feb?

Appeals courts set their own schedules and if you don't like it you can suck their dicks.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Why is it taking so long for the appeals court to rule? Weren't oral arguments in Feb?

We have the result date. Here's a reminder:

Within 90 days, the Appellate Court is required by law to issue its judgement on the matter.

It's been only 42 days. We will see the result in, at most, another 48 days.

 

[teriyakiburns]

And here I was thinking something had happened...

Appeals courts set their own schedules and if you don't like it you can suck their dicks.

That's why they're called oral arguments, is it?

 

[Kosher Salt]

Why is it taking so long for the appeals court to rule? Weren't oral arguments in Feb?

Most likely they have ruled, decided how they mean to rule anyway, and now some poor clerk is trying to look up citations to justify the ruling that they want to make.

 

[AnOminous]

It's been only 42 days. We will see the result in, at most, another 48 days.

Unless the chief judge waives the deadline "for good cause," although it's difficult to imagine what could constitute that in this case.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Unless the chief judge waives the deadline "for good cause," although it's difficult to imagine what could constitute that in this case.

Whether Nick wins or loses, his lawyer will continue to sabotage the case. From that point of view, is it not a "good cause" to never resolve this?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

UPDATE

Montagraph's lawyer informs the court of new ANTI-SLAPP in Minnesota that may soon be enacted

Court rejected this over mismatched account v signature

 

[Kosher Salt]

Montagraph's lawyer informs the court of new ANTI-SLAPP in Minnesota that may soon be enacted

If it passed, would it retroactively apply to existing lawsuits?

Would this be good or bad for Monty's case? It basically suggests that anti-SLAPP laws such as proposed legislation in Wisconsin (or perhaps Colorado's anti-SLAPP) might not be completely unconstitutional in Minnesota after all. Or at least, the Minnesota legislature isn't ready to concede that that they are.

 

[TurboNAS]

If it passed, would it retroactively apply to existing lawsuits?

Would this be good or bad for Monty's case? It basically suggests that anti-SLAPP laws such as proposed legislation in Wisconsin (or perhaps Colorado's anti-SLAPP) might not be completely unconstitutional in Minnesota after all. Or at least, the Minnesota legislature isn't ready to concede that that they are.

It's probably going to help Monty or at worst be neutral.

The novel theory that Colorado's Anti-SLAPP applies to Minnesota may get more legs as possibly applying to another state but that appeal sounds like a long shot. Monty isn't bringing a vague claim of "somebody said something and I don't like it" which would be why we have Anti-SLAPP rules, he has clear video evidence and followup videos where Rekieta defamed him per se. Unless you mis-notarize things or blow deadlines it should pass onto normal defamation lawsuit territory.

It's unreal how much money is vanishing into Randazza's pockets here because Rekieta doesn't want to man up and admit he said some dumb shit on a livestream. It's a hell of a cautionary tale.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Monty isn't bringing a vague claim of "somebody said something and I don't like it" which would be why we have Anti-SLAPP rules, he has clear video evidence and followup videos where Rekieta defamed him per se.

Unless the statements in question are all statements of opinion, in which case it's impossible for them to be defamatory. Whether the statements identified in the complaint as defamatory are statements of opinion or fact is a question of law which can (and should) be determined by the court prior to any need for a trial or jury, and only after the court determines that there are statements of fact that could form the basis for a claim of defamation would the case be allowed to go to a jury for trial.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

If it passed, would it retroactively apply to existing lawsuits?

I don't believe so

Would this be good or bad for Monty's case?

It helps Randazza's argument, but either way not like the suit is going to be dismissed on anti-slapp grounds

 

[Space Pope]

If it passed, would it retroactively apply to existing lawsuits?

I don't believe so

Sec. 17. EFFECTIVE DATE.​

This act is effective the day following final enactment and applies to a civil action pending on or commenced on or after that date.

I believe that is saying it would apply to existing civil lawsuits that were still pending the day after the governor would sign the bill.