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

[DragoonSierra]

I liked Josh's interview with Monty. He came across as a schizo, but the schizo who remembered to save his sources.

Was that recent? Got a link?

 

[Sam Losco]

This is why you're a massive faggot that's BARELY not retarded enough for me to accuse of being a Nick sock.

He's way too coherent to be Nick.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Why? There's like actual avenues he could take to win this. Did alcohol rot his brain so much he can only plan the losing moves?

Yes.

Nick also has a vendetta against Montegraph’s lawyer, David Schneider. This stems from Schneider disliking Nick for representing a woman embezzled funds in order to seduce her gay husband (I feel like this was foreshadowing) and how his defense was shit. Nick also holds it against him for Schneider not offering him a job and instead free office space for a year and mentoring during his first few years as a lawyer. He scoffed at the fact that they would give him crackheads to defend, which is basically what a public defender does.

Correction: The beef with Schneider started when he allegedly offered Nick space in his law firm's basement, referrals, and some limited guidance to start his own practice as they were not hiring at the time. Supposedly this occurred over a 3-hour cordial chat. When Nick went back, however, Dave professed not to know anything about it. (Nick later added the detail that Dave said he would send 'those kinds' of clients to Nick--drug addicts and the like that Nick implied Dave implied were not worth his time).

Later, Nick was doing horribly on a debt collection case for just under or over a year, and got fired by the client. He then did not do the paperwork to formally withdraw, snarling the court record, and submitted a late withdrawal notice months later. Dave took over the case, and had it settled inside of 3 weeks for a reduced amount.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

Yes.



Correction: The beef with Schneider started when he allegedly offered Nick space in his law firm's basement, referrals, and some limited guidance to start his own practice as they were not hiring at the time. Supposedly this occurred over a 3-hour cordial chat. When Nick went back, however, Dave professed not to know anything about it. (Nick later added the detail that Dave said he would send 'those kinds' of clients to Nick--drug addicts and the like that Nick implied Dave implied were not worth his time).

Later, Nick was doing horribly on a debt collection case for just under or over a year, and got fired by the client. He then did not do the paperwork to formally withdraw, snarling the court record, and submitted a late withdrawal notice months later. Dave took over the case, and had it settled inside of 3 weeks for a reduced amount.

The Schneider stuff is honestly the most complex part of the Rekieta drama. The gay pastor had a part in it, but at its core is that Schneider doesn’t respect Nick as an attorney. I believe Nick got dressed down by Schneider at some point, maybe after the gay pastor and the cornering of the judge in the elevator.

I don’t know the timeline of events though. I just know shit happened.

 

[Swole McPole]

The beef with Schneider started when he allegedly offered Nick space in his law firm's basement, referrals, and some limited guidance to start his own practice as they were not hiring at the time. Supposedly this occurred over a 3-hour cordial chat. When Nick went back, however, Dave professed not to know anything about it

Imagine you're a lawyer and a freshly-qualified Rekieta comes into your office looking for a job. You don't have any vacancies, but you tell him he can share your office space and get some free mentoring.

How long would it take before you realize that you've fucked up, big time. Invited somebody with Narcissistic Personality Disorder to come and share your office space? If you have ANY experience at all with such people, you realize what a disasterous mistake you've made and you have to do whatever it takes to withdraw your offer.

How long does it take before you realize your error and withdraw the offer? My guess is that you'd realize the error during your initial meeting (perhaps when you saw his reaction to your offer and he displayed a sense of entitlement rather than gratitude.) And how long before you withdraw your offer? If you were smart, you'd do it the same day. You don't want him making plans on the basis of your offer. That shit could get you sued.

Schneider's behaviour seems utterly rational to me. I can't imagine I would have done anything differently -- aside from making the initial offer. I was overly generous when I was young as well. Once you've been burned a couple of times, you start to be a bit more circumspect about who you invite into your life.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

The Schneider stuff is honestly the most complex part of the Rekieta drama. The gay pastor had a part in it, but at its core is that Schneider doesn’t respect Nick as an attorney. I believe Nick got dressed down by Schneider at some point, maybe after the gay pastor and the cornering of the judge in the elevator.

I don’t know the timeline of events though. I just know shit happened.

The gay pastor thing was related to the judge, Fischer, who is the presiding judge in MN in this case. Schneider has nothing to do with the embezzler who stole 6 figures of money to un-gay her husband. It was a criminal case, and Schneider had no part in it.

The story goes that Nick was representing the woman who embezzled a lot of money over years (there were some hinting that she was connected to family, friends, or family/friends' church) and tried to get her sentenced to community service, restitution, and some probation. He had her plead guilty to some of the charges, but not all of them, then asked the judge to 'pls no bully'. The thing is that the charges she pleaded to were the worst and could be assigned heavy sentences.

At the sentencing the judge took exception to the fact that she did not plea to everything and 'take responsibility', and that she had the audacity to ask for such a light sentence. Supposedly, she also went on about privilleged in having a lawyer (implied that judge thought she was paying for it with stolen funds) and then threw the book at her. Nick bragged about bitching her out in the elevator afterwards.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

The gay pastor thing was related to the judge, Fischer, who is the presiding judge in MN in this case. Schneider has nothing to do with the embezzler who stole 6 figures of money to un-gay her husband. It was a criminal case, and Schneider had no part in it.

The story goes that Nick was representing the woman who embezzled a lot of money over years (there were some hinting that she was connected to family, friends, or family/friends' church) and tried to get her sentenced to community service, restitution, and some probation. He had her plead guilty to some of the charges, but not all of them, then asked the judge to 'pls no bully'. The thing is that the charges she pleaded to were the worst and could be assigned heavy sentences.

At the sentencing the judge took exception to the fact that she did not plea to everything and 'take responsibility', and that she had the audacity to ask for such a light sentence. Supposedly, she also went on about privilleged in having a lawyer (implied that judge thought she was paying for it with stolen funds) and then threw the book at her. Nick bragged about bitching her out in the elevator afterwards.

I think Schneider also took umbrage with his defense in that case. Nick’s law community isn’t big and that wasn’t a blip on the radar. He basically took a big case two years into his career and actively harmed his client.

Nick lies, but I think Schneider in general did offer a hand to Nick and Nick said no. The Schneider not remembering the offer screams like Nick omitting details. The constant with Nick’s life from his own narration is hating having someone telling him what to do. My guess it was a one time offer before he bought into his Strip mall lease.

Regardless of that Schneider is big in the local law community and seems to see Nick as a disgrace to the vocation and law. I think Schneider basically thought that Nick harmed his clients far more than he helps them.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Oh, so Nick lied. Again. Imagine my shock.

This is only a lie if you pretend that "retraction" doesn't have a significant meaning in relation to defamation.

A demand to take a stream down is not a demand for retraction, as it does nothing to correct the alleged wrongful claim. The alleged damage from the allegedly defamatory claim has already occurred. If the "defamatory" stream disappears it could mean anything from a copyright claim to a YouTube strike to a "I believe this but I'm really risk adverse and I really don't want this retard to sue me".

A retraction, in the context of defamation, is a statement saying that a previous statement was inaccurate.

It's too bad that Monty doesn't seem to have anyone to give him competent legal advice on how to request shit like that.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

This is only a lie if you pretend that "retraction" doesn't have a significant meaning in relation to defamation.

A demand to take a stream down is not a demand for retraction, as it does nothing to correct the alleged wrongful claim. The alleged damage from the allegedly defamatory claim has already occurred. If the "defamatory" stream disappears it could mean anything from a copyright claim to a YouTube strike to a "I believe this but I'm really risk adverse and I really don't want this retard to sue me".

A retraction, in the context of defamation, is a statement saying that a previous statement was inaccurate.

It's too bad that Monty doesn't seem to have anyone to give him competent legal advice on how to request shit like that.

All this nice legal theory goes to hell if a jury is involved, however. I doubt they will quibble much over the 'how' of the ask and focus more on the repeated shocking statements.

Nick's semantic and legal gamesmanship may effect a positive result when judges and lawyers are involved, but when Johnny the Plumber hears it, all bets are off, and I think that Monty is a slightly less heinous person than Nick would be made out to be.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Oh, so Nick lied. Again. Imagine my shock.

Legally we can’t rule out that he was blackout drunk and high as a kite when the retraction was publicly requested. It’s pretty clear Nick never goes back and actually looks at the damage that he does to himself on camera.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

This is only a lie if you pretend that "retraction" doesn't have a significant meaning in relation to defamation.

A demand to take a stream down is not a demand for retraction, as it does nothing to correct the alleged wrongful claim. The alleged damage from the allegedly defamatory claim has already occurred. If the "defamatory" stream disappears it could mean anything from a copyright claim to a YouTube strike to a "I believe this but I'm really risk adverse and I really don't want this retard to sue me".

A retraction, in the context of defamation, is a statement saying that a previous statement was inaccurate.

It's too bad that Monty doesn't seem to have anyone to give him competent legal advice on how to request shit like that.

I could not agree more.

The problem Monty has had from the beginning is that he didn't instruct his lawyer to write a letter to your exact specifications demanding a retraction from Rekieta.

Monty's request for the removal of the streams containing the statements plus an apology which Nick responded to on stream is totally different from a retraction, which is extremely important, irrespective of whether Minnesota has any relevant retraction statute.

Even though Nick refused to delete and apologize for his statements and has repeatedly and forcefully said that he would never settle the case, this is the face of someone who would have been amenable to a properly written retraction demand:

 

[Pedophobe]

Section 17 of the bill clearly states:
This act is effective the day following final enactment and applies to a civil action pending on or commenced on or after that date.

Reading this on it's own it seems to state that it would apply to this case. However, I originally misread the savings clause.

Does "pending" mean "ongoing“ in this context?

 

[Space Pope]

Does "pending" mean "ongoing“ in this context?

If you are asking whether it applies to this case, the answer is no. Randazza's filings correctly state that the savings clause renders it moot for cases where pleadings on these topics have already been made. The way the bill is written, it is theoretically possible that a lawsuit commenced prior to the passage could be brought under the new law if no pleadings on any of the topics covered by the law had been made but somehow came up later. As AnOminous pointed out, it's a rather strange and roundabout way to handle this compared to how other states have done it which is what lead to the initial confusion to if it would apply here or not.

For anyone still curious about the status of the bill for some reason, it has been added to the Minnesota Senate's Omnibus Judiciary Bill. It is expected to pass with little or no debate and the Democrats who control the chamber will not allow amendments.

 

[Spaded Dave]

This is only a lie if you pretend that "retraction" doesn't have a significant meaning in relation to defamation.

Now, my friend, it is my turn to concede a point and admit when I'm wrong.

You are, in fact, retarded enough to be accused of being a Nick sock account. I was wrong and I apologize for overestimating your intelligence.

 

[AnOminous]

Correction: The beef with Schneider started when he allegedly offered Nick space in his law firm's basement, referrals, and some limited guidance to start his own practice as they were not hiring at the time. Supposedly this occurred over a 3-hour cordial chat. When Nick went back, however, Dave professed not to know anything about it. (Nick later added the detail that Dave said he would send 'those kinds' of clients to Nick--drug addicts and the like that Nick implied Dave implied were not worth his time).

Incidentally, this is a completely normal kind of arrangement, and a way a lot of lawyers get their start. I know it may strike some people as amazing, but a lot of people needing legal services are not the best kind of person. Nick apparently felt himself above this kind of practice, as the mammoth trust fund douchebaby he is, but he wasn't. That's how a lot of lawyers make their original bones. This is how you both get experience and make a little bit of money at the same time.

Nick, though, felt he was too good for this. So what a normal human would have been grateful for as generosity, he took as an insult. And look how it's worked out for him. He bit the hand that fed. What a fucking idiot.

Look at what a loser and an ungrateful shithead Nick Rekieta is.

Look at him pretending to be "Law Pope" after this, when his entire life history is on display, without pity, right here.

 

[Captain Manning]

I had thought that this was canon. As I was not following Monty as a cow and had no knowledge of him prior to his interactions with Nick, I assumed that there'd be screenshots of YouTube comments to support it. But I wasn't about to go trawling through pages and pages to try to find it just to refute some troll.

You know what, though, I'm not married to the claim. If you say it never happened, as I have no evidence that it did, and since even Null apparently edited down the OP in Monty's thread to say that he wasn't able to find any proof of it either, I'll concede the point.

A lot of people here believed the photography studio story because it was originally in the OP of Monty's thread, and the OP was written by Null.

On that basis, I can't give people too much shit for repeating the story up until the middle of last year. I think I was actually guilty of repeating it a couple of times myself. A lot of people put a great deal of trust in what Null writes.

Here's the important thing though:

Because Null... quite unlike Nick... has integrity, he retracted that shit almost a year ago. Something Null very rarely does without good cause. He's stood up to corporations and governments. He's not gonna be cowed into submission by somebody like Monty, unless Monty makes a damn compelling argument. In the instant case, Monty did exactly that. Null has demonstrated a great deal of hostility towards unsupported claims of pedophilia. Of which Monty has repeatedly been a victim of.

I don't know if you know this or not, but you are one of the very people left on the Farms actively defending Nick anymore. Your arguments about the woman in Monty's weird-ass movie appearing to be underage are also highly unpersuasive.

Never mind the fact that none of these claims I just mentioned are the specific accusation that Monty "sucks little boy cocks." By all indications, that one is a "Nose Original."

I think maybe instead of continuing to unquestionably and uncritically defend the things Nick said about Monty, it might be in your best interest to take a break and research exactly what is known about Monty. What I have found is that when people do that, they come away with the view that Monty is definitely a weirdo, but he did NOT deserve Nick calling him a pedo.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Legally we can’t rule out that he was blackout drunk and high as a kite when the retraction was publicly requested. It’s pretty clear Nick never goes back and actually looks at the damage that he does to himself on camera.

I agree. Nick is oblivious (willfully or not) of a lot of things. As I started to look into things he was talking and had talked about for myself, I realised what a hack he was and how spoon-fed he was.
His topics and shows suck because: 1) He does not research anything himself other than reading an article cold, then riffing on some tangent 2) He cannot get expert guests on his show anymore, but 2b) When he does, it degenerates into coomer talk and tangents. 3) His tangents make no sense and his schedule makes him unpredictable.

Incidentally, this is a completely normal kind of arrangement, and a way a lot of lawyers get their start. I know it may strike some people as amazing, but a lot of people needing legal services are not the best kind of person. Nick apparently felt himself above this kind of practice, as the mammoth trust fund douchebaby he is, but he wasn't. That's how a lot of lawyers make their original bones. This is how you both get experience and make a little bit of money at the same time.

Nick, though, felt he was too good for this. So what a normal human would have been grateful for as generosity, he took as an insult. And look how it's worked out for him. He bit the hand that fed. What a fucking idiot.

Look at what a loser and an ungrateful shithead Nick Rekieta is.

Look at him pretending to be "Law Pope" after this, when his entire life history is on display, without pity, right here.

This makes perfect sense, and I would put good money down that the truthful version of events between your description and Nick's recounting is closer to yours. Does not every profession do this? The new person has to take the low-level jobs because of seniority or just that fucking them up is not a big deal?

Nick seems like the type to show up to a job and want mid-level career perqs to start because he 'knows his own value'. These are the know-it-all trainees that you cringe when you have to train, and hope their contract can be broken fairly easily. They do not get a glowing recommendation.

 

[AnOminous]

Because Null... quite unlike Nick... has integrity, he retracted that shit almost a year ago. Something Null very rarely does without good cause. He's stood up to corporations and governments. He's not gonna be cowed into submission by somebody like Monty, unless Monty makes a damn compelling argument. In the instant case, Monty did exactly that. Null has demonstrated a great deal of hostility towards unsupported claims of pedophilia. Of which Monty has repeatedly been a victim of.

This is a thing about Null. I don't know how many people have noticed it. You can threaten the fuck out of him, even as a literal country, and he will tell you to go fuck yourself. If you actually prove to him that he was wrong about something, he may not like it, but he'll say okay, yes, I was wrong on that.

I admire that. That's what a MAN does. A MAN MANS up and corrects himself, like a MAN.

That's what Nick doesn't. Because he is a fag and a cuck.

This makes perfect sense, and I would put good money down that the truthful version of events between your description and Nick's recounting is closer to yours.

I'll admit my version is almost certaintly tainted by negative inferences based on my current loathing of this repulsive scumbag.

But he has been entirely unambiguous in his open loathing for people like crackheads he could have represented under this reference thing the lawyer currently suing him on Monty's behalf offered him. He felt he was above that. Well, look at him now. Tell me this worthless piece of shit is even a step above the crackheads he so loathed and held in contempt. What's better about him, other than that he had rich parents?

Those crackheads may be scum, but Nick isn't? He acts exactly the same way they do.

Whenever you feel superior to other people, remember this: "There, but for the grace of God, go I."

I'm not sure why, but Nick somehow reignites my dormant religious principles.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Now, my friend, it is my turn to concede a point and admit when I'm wrong.

You are, in fact, retarded enough to be accused of being a Nick sock account. I was wrong and I apologize for overestimating your intelligence.

Part of the reason I didn't even bother to go look for evidence to argue with you, until I did, like a day later - and discovered that I couldn't find any and that I may have been wrong - is because you act like this.

Keep being you, I guess.

This makes perfect sense, and I would put good money down that the truthful version of events between your description and Nick's recounting is closer to yours. Does not every profession do this? The new person has to take the low-level jobs because of seniority or just that fucking them up is not a big deal?

My recollection was that Nick's source of irritation was that after extending the offer, he got ghosted. Then later the story about David expressing serious disdain for potential clients was told, not because Nick was annoyed at having to deal with someone's leftovers, but because he believed it was a smear on the profession for a lawyer to talk about drug addicts like they're less human just because they're impoverished and can't afford your rates.

 

[AnOminous]

My recollection was that Nick's source of irritation was that after extending the offer, he got ghosted. Then later the story about David expressing serious disdain for potential clients was told, not because Nick was annoyed at having to deal with someone's leftovers, but because he believed it was a smear on the profession for a lawyer to talk about drug addicts like they're less human just because they're impoverished and can't afford your rates.

This is the kind of bullshit Nick would claim. Not all of them would be able to pay him some lump sum up front. But even some of them who didn't qualify directly for public defenders would be able to get some funding. Courts appoint atttorneys sometimes out of a pool who are willing to represent indigent defendants.

Actually a judge can even just randomly appoint an attorney to do this because they happen to be physically present in the court. I've seen this happen. There's at least one case where someone dragooned into representing an indigent claimed slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment and got laughed out of court.