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

I was originally wrong. Randazza is correct. The savings clause changes how its applied as I tried to show in my answer above.
That's a pretty messy way of doing that. For instance, what exactly would trigger it? Any arguments in the case at all? An interlocutory appeal? Only filing another cause of action in the same suit? So taking that clause in what seems like its most basic sense, it wouldn't apply to the defamation causes already asserted, but the old (to be repealed) statutes would still apply to those.

It'd seem to avoid the constitutional issue I was worried about at least.

And fool me thinking Randazza would be outright wrong.
 
Most if not all allegations against Montagraph seem to be bunk, from what I can tell. He's a retard and a shockjock, perhaps, but he is neither a pedophile, nor a real rapist, or whatever other things he has been accused of.
Montegraph thread: Created 2019. 18 pages. Last post was in 2023.

Rekieta thread: Created 2019. 3544 pages. Grows several pages each and every day.

Nobody can be arsed to milk Montegraph anymore, because there barely is any milk. The only people that even seem to try are a dwindling handful of people who are in complete denial of what a unmitigated disaster drunken skeletor is now. Jim has completely lost interest, and Null is downright sympathetic to Monty on a least a few points.
 
Last edited:
Knowing that a lot of the "lore" around Montagraph is overblown speculation, it's hard to find the milk palatable anymore. Oh cool, he made a couple cringe low budget short films 20 years ago, he put fake eyes into a melon about 30 years ago, and when he photographed families 40 years ago sometimes the families had children, and people have spent an inordinate amount of effort trying to convince everyone that all means he's a pedophile.

Meanwhile, Rekieta over here is inexplicably bleeding out the nose, fixating on films about men fucking young girls, talking to shadow figures guiding his fate, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on "Live, Laugh, Love" art, starving his children, and missing basic Zoom calls because he's literally dying from alcoholism. There's more milk than you know what to do with when it comes to Nick Rekieta.
 
What's mind blowing is Nick is spending all this money just so he doesn't have to apologize to Monty for saying he sucked little boy penis. Spending all this money to not admit too yourself that you were an asshole and the "joke" wasn't very funny is mind blowing to me. It's not just "his" money he's burning in this bonfire of vanity, it's his families.
This whole arc is the textbook descent of 'functional alcoholic' into 'fucked alcoholic'.
 
Screenshot 2024-04-29 195059.png
Montagraph's lawyer sent the Judge another life-changing DM. The Jury is still out on whether this one is fraudulent like the last one.

He had to inform the court about the 10th Circuit Coomer case and how it might affect (Colorado's in the 10th) the Anti-Slapp question.
 

Attachments

He had another melt down and laid out his legal strategy. He’s literally depending on the absence of evidence not being the evidence of absence and Monty’s previous case being thrown out.

Good luck trying a retard-tier Lawl Twitter argument in a real court.

Also Greer-tier job of talking about his legal strategy. Maybe he can show us some of Randazza's emails while he's at it. What a tard.
 
Good luck trying a retard-tier Lawl Twitter argument in a real court.

Also Greer-tier job of talking about his legal strategy. Maybe he can show us some of Randazza's emails while he's at it. What a tard.
I want to go to a jury trial and have Law and Crime get a camera in there out of spite. I’d feel bad if Sean and Null have to be called as witnesses, but it would be so funny.

IMG_1422.jpeg
 
He had another melt down and laid out his legal strategy. He’s literally depending on the absence of evidence not being the evidence of absence and Monty’s previous case being thrown out.
The funny thing about this case is he could literally just settle at any time. It is objectively the least expensive thing to have done and still to do, and the evidence for what Rekieta said is pretty weak.

You all know this of course but I'd like to point out how he keeps doubling down. Classic Lolcow behavior of making bad decisions. Every single opportunity he has to cut his losses he doesn't take in favor of protecting his ego.
 
The funny thing about this case is he could literally just settle at any time. It is objectively the least expensive thing to have done and still to do, and the evidence for what Rekieta said is pretty weak.

You all know this of course but I'd like to point out how he keeps doubling down. Classic Lolcow behavior of making bad decisions. Every single opportunity he has to cut his losses he doesn't take in favor of protecting his ego.
I did a timestamps of the video in the MATI thread and he literally says he wants Monty to tell him to retract and then says he wouldn’t take the out anyway. He’s utterly retarded.
 
I did a timestamps of the video in the MATI thread and he literally says he wants Monty to tell him to retract and then says he wouldn’t take the out anyway. He’s utterly retarded.
He shot himself in the foot and wasn't satisfied and went on to shoot off both his legs too. An absolute moron. Courts generally don't require you to engage in an act of futility, and he basically just said Monty would have been wasting his time to ask for a retraction. His behavior makes clear he would have just taken such a request as an opportunity to call him a pedo some more.

Therefore, there was no prejudice to Nick from not being asked for a retraction he has repeatedly explicitly stated he'd never give anyway.
 
He shot himself in the foot and wasn't satisfied and went on to shoot off both his legs too. An absolute moron. Courts generally don't require you to engage in an act of futility, and he basically just said Monty would have been wasting his time to ask for a retraction. His behavior makes clear he would have just taken such a request as an opportunity to call him a pedo some more.

Therefore, there was no prejudice to Nick from not being asked for a retraction he has repeatedly explicitly stated he'd never give anyway.
Here’s the link to my post. He repeats this a lot. Basically he’s not on trial in his opinion, Montagraph is.

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mad-at-the-internet.49299/post-18289860
 
Back