Let me ask this question what could cause Nick to fire Randazza?
Nick is a retard and Nick is the client. Nobody else will make the retarded arguments Nick is vastly eager to dump immense amounts of money on. Seriously, Randazza isn't ripping Nick off. Nick actually WANTS this level of stupidity. This kind of shit is what Nick is PAYING FOR.
What was the line Nick used to use all the time during the Vic stuff? HOW EMBARASSING
Dude, that's why I chose that specific word. It was a reference.
Nothing because the kiwi incels would make fun of him and point out that it's been said multiple times and all stages of the lawsuit that hiring Randazza was a dumb fucking idea, this will cause his totally real ODD to kick into high gear and make him pay Randazza a million hours.
Greer is just retarded, Randazza is malicious in fucking his client (and perhaps literally too)
The thing that keeps surprising me is that every time Montagraph does something retarded in this case, Nick immediately does something more retarded, which prompts Montagraph to outretard Nick, which forces Nick to outretard Montagraph. No joke, the Judge is probably the most mentally sound party (though, really, not by much) in this case, and that's not really a good thing.
Realization that he is paying way too much for something that produced literally no favorable results. Montagraph's lawyer is probably much cheaper, and oral (appellate) argument aside, performed much better.
Reminder that Randazza purposely miscited the Maddow case to not get this thrown out immediately. It's not binding on this court (Minnesota is in 8th as opposed to 9th), but other courts (including of the state whose laws Nick wants imported on this case) have cited the decision favorably. It is THE decision to use in this case. You don't want to do retarded citations about context, there are better cases for that. What you want to cite is, "Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow , 8 F.4th 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding television host Rachel Maddow's statement that "OAN ‘really literally is paid Russian propaganda’ " was opinion)" and state that this is identical to that case. Just like in that case, the word "literally" shouldn't have a meaning, and therefore no reasonable person could conclude it was a factual statement. THEN you can cite the case's context part, but Randazza already had used Tucker's case for it. The case slots in perfectly. In both cases the parties made a factual statement that amounted to defamation per se (impugning business integrity v accusation of a crime). Context of both is a opinionated show that sometimes gets heated. Legally he probably wouldn't have found a better fit. BUT NO, Randazza couldn't cite the actually good part for his client. HE JUST HAD TO make multiple identical and superfluous arguments.
It may be that due to the context of the nature of his show, and words having no meaning, that his words could be considered an opinion (see the Maddow case as a slot in). Alternatively, due to Montagraph's long standing reputation of being a pedophile (and allegedly directly movies where he lists himself as a rapist of an underage girl), he might be get away with it too, or be technically liable, but with little or no damages, including punitive ones. In cases like this, the Judge has an appellate court approved ability to override Jury damage verdicts. It is also well established in Minnesota that the presumed damages (from Defamation per se) cannot be higher than any actual damage (see broadly Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)). Reminder, Montagraph's entire damages argument rests on "let me have a looksie into your bank account, and I'll know how much I've been damaged. Other than that there are no damages I can point to".
Even $50k isn't going to hurt Rackets, based off the amount he's spent on Randazza. I would just appreciate the lulz from Balldoman having to take the L, even for $1 in damages.
Truth, or the reasonable belief that the accusation about a public figure is true, is an absolute defense to defamation in the US.
See, morally, I think Nick should lose, and pay out big. Montagraph is not someone I can describe nicely, but Nick's words were hideous and that's putting it lightly.
He also claims to "often use[ing] [...]young children in his work[s]"
This is mildly hilarious given that in my lolsuit reading so far the judge seems to tend to pull 'OP is a faggot, I will now do what I want'
I'm confused by this. The way you phrase this implies that there is either a direct quote or some admission by Steve Quest that this is true, but the link is to IMDB which doesn't cite anything or anyone specific. I checked Google, this thread, and Steve Quest's threads and I can't find him making this claim. Did Steve Quest write that line in his IMDB or is there some source I'm missing?
Bro, Montagraph's lawyer went, "Judge, Ma'am, we don't have evidence of harm, but if you just let me take a looksie at Mr. Rekieta, we will find super secret Medical documents that only he has that proves that he did millions of damages to us. No, we can't visit a doctor ourselves. Also, he is trying to exterminate all Niggers", and the Judge went, "yeah, that makes sense. Please proceed good sir, I will grant your request"
If he didn't write it, he would have it taken down, like Greer did. I mean, the man allegedly has been trying to combat his bad reputation since 2019. You email IMDB, and they take it down. That simple. Considering he didn't, I am lead to assume that he approves of the statement and has wrote it himself.
Appreciate the clarity. I've never needed to have my IMDB altered, so that's interesting to consider from Montagraph's perspective.
I also forgot to add that Montagraph never contested (as far as I can recall) the accuracy of the IMDB page when Nick brought it up in his motion to dismiss.
I don't believe he is a real pedophile, but the dude really fucked himself by being a shockjock a decade back. Seemingly he is still proud of that, which fair enough, but doesn't help his image.
He fingerfucked it. The idea behind it was supposed to be lewd, IIRC. I think it's all just stupid, but, here we are anyway.
