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

[Captain Manning]

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.

There's that, but the other thing is that Null is hostile to half-baked accusations of pedophilia. Famously so. He knows that's the worst thing in the world to call somebody, and you better have the proof ready if you're gonna do it. Child molestation, or sexual assault of a minor, which is what Nick actually accused Monty of engaging in, is even worse.

Not only does Nick lack such proof for his claim, but seemingly nobody has such proof.

Well, I don't have proof that it didn't happen

but specific instances in which he did not is not proof that he did not ever.

Please tell me you are not serious.

Do you understand that requiring somebody to prove a negative is a logical fallacy?

edit: *I'll grant him a bit of credit and say that his demand to have his OP edited to remove the accusation is at least remotely close to a denial. But I'd really appreciate him giving something more substantial than "don't say that".

I don't know what the substance of Monty's private communication with Null was, and I am guessing neither do you. I am also not about to demand Null release it. Null's private comms are none of my business.

We can say with certainty that whatever the substance of the conversation was, Null was amenable to Monty's request. That's good enough for me. It is highly improbable that Null would ever censor/retract/delete something based solely on a request of "don't say this." He gets requests like that all the time. Most of them denied. Many of them have been catalogued in the "Take that off the goddamned Internet" subforum.

It is more likely that he would do it based on the fact there is no credible proof for the claim being made. I would presume that included a denial from Monty made to Null.

Well, I stopped following that thread a long time ago.

If you followed it, you would know that Nick made similar arguments (that Monty somehow needs to prove a negative) for last 2 of 3 nights. The thread made fun of him for it. He's a drunken drugged out skeletonized idiot grasping at anything he can to justify saying that Monty "sucks little boy cocks."

Now, I know you're not Nick, because I remember you from WW, but I gotta be honest with you: @Spaded Dave is correct that you are sounding an awful lot like how he sounds now. It's kinda creepy.

You can be offended by this if you want, but I'm just telling you the God's honest truth. Trust me dude, you really don't wanna be sounding like circa-2024 Nicholas Robert Rekieta. Most people that follow him closely nowadays (and there are a LOT) are well and truly sick of his bullshit, and only do so to ridicule him now.

 

[Mikoyan]

you are sounding an awful lot like how he sounds now. It's kinda creepy.

I heard that 'I want to believe, prove it to me' line in Rackets' voice.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I think Nick might get rid of Randazza if the slapp stuff fails

That would be smart, but I really don't think Nick will do that (to his detriment if Randazza is really feeding him the libel-proof angle).

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I think Nick might get rid of Randazza if the slapp stuff fails. The theory I have for why Nick decided to hire Randazza in the first place is because he wanted to turn this case into a spectacle. Randazza seemed to be the guy to do that type of thing and lets not forget the gofundme Nick started for this case. Nick wanted to do everything Dick Masterson did with his lolsuit.

Agreed. Randazza was an attempt to intimidate a small town lawyer. He underestimated the grudge that Dave had for him and the money Monty would have for an appeal lawyer.

Doubly agreed on emulation of Juju being his goal. He even outright stated he would print money off the case.

Nick could have still made bank off covering his own lolsuit with a competent local representation, but specifically chose not to. People who think they're important want everyone to know they're important. Getting big name celebrity Randazza on retainer was a way to show how rich and popular he was. Randazza doesn't take cases from any nobody. I'm sure Marc has an ego stroking, snake oil sales routine for marks like Nick down pat.

I disagree on this fact. Nick had the desire to monetise, but when people (especially the Farms) started looking at Nick's claims in the aftermath of him telling the old audience to 'fuck off', Nick experienced (for perhaps one of the few times in his life) a critical evaluation and saw his clout as inadequate.

If you were around for Weeb Wars, the dirt that was dug up on the KV side and the mass of mud thrown was gigantic. I am NOT claiming that Nick abandoned his plans because of the Farms, but he pulled the rip cord on that plunge when he stopped getting unquestioned loyalty and the posse who would cheer his lame jokes and jabs at Monty were gone. If only Nick could do the same with his aborted comedian aspirations....

I don't know what the substance of Monty's private communication with Null was, and I am guessing neither do you. I am also not about to demand Null release it. Null's private comms are none of my business.

We can say with certainty that whatever the substance of the conversation was, Null was amenable to Monty's request. That's good enough for me. It is highly improbable that Null would ever censor/retract/delete something based solely on a request of "don't say this." He gets requests like that all the time. Most of them denied. Many of them have been catalogued in the "Take that off the goddamned Internet" subforum.

It is more likely that he would do it based on the fact there is no credible proof for the claim being made. I would presume that included a denial from Monty made to Null.

There is a MATI segment on it.

 

[talk talk talk]

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.

Minnesota has public defender contracts--often half-time. So if you want to start a small-town practice, you can get a half-time public defender contract to take what they estimate to be a half-time workload of whatever you get assigned. In a small town, that's mostly going to be DUIs and small-time drug cases and probation violations. It pays enough to pay rent on an office and live on in a small town if you're frugal. The other half of your time you spend on your own practice.

 

[Captain Manning]

There is a MATI segment on it.

Is there? I couldn't remember if there was or not. I am just going by what Null posted in the revised OP.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Is there? I couldn't remember if there was or not. I am just going by what Null posted in the revised OP.

As I recall, he talked about it, and he spoke more on how calling someone a paedo is the most horrific thing you can do. It might even be the stream where he says he would act as the agent of the state to perform a late-term abortion on Vaedo. Not 100% sure on the same stream, but he definitely addressed it at some point.

 

[Captain Manning]

That would be smart, but I really don't think Nick will do that (to his detriment if Randazza is really feeding him the libel-proof angle).

It's my understanding that Randazza was brought in to try and get Colorado SLAPP to apply, and should that that not happen (or the application of any SLAPP), his value relative to a more local and/or cheaper attorney depreciates considerably.

I recall thinking Nick might have given himself an out to shitcan Randazza based on his displeasure with the Veritas case.

As I recall, he talked about it, and he spoke more on how calling someone a paedo is the most horrific thing you can do. It might even be the stream where he says he would act as the agent of the state to perform a late-term abortion on Vaedo. Not 100% sure on the same stream, but he definitely addressed it at some point.

Right. I vaguely remember it. It certainly wasn't just "Monty demanded I take it down, and I caved." That's not Null. LOL.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

Montegraph needs to amend his complaint. Rekieta is less drunk here, but basically doubles down that Montegraph produced CP and (it comes across to me) alleged Montegraph’s conspiracy shit is a cover his distribution of CP.

He’s such a cunt here. “He needs to prove to me he doesn’t molest children.” If this goes to trial you really just need to show the drunk clip and this one. He thinks Monty and his lawyer need to come to him hat in hand begging for a retraction (which Nick wouldn’t take according to the videos).

There’s a world of difference between thinking someone is a weirdo and screaming to an audience of 5-4 figures that a man is a CP producer who molests children.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

If this goes to trial you really just need to show the drunk clip

What you want is the exact opposite of him saying this while drunk.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

What you want is the exact opposite of him saying this while drunk.

I meant showing that drunk or sober he doubled down. Although I don’t think he’s ever sober anymore, I think he literally has alcohol dependency.

 

[Napoleon III]

Nick certainly wanted to create a spectacle, but I think it was also ego driven as well.

I don't think these are mutually exclusive at all. Something I have noticed about "KHANTENT" creators is that they are trained via looking at the view-count/money-earned to do things that stroke their ego. It's almost like drugs in a certain way especially to someone that is Bipolar/Narcissistic or both.

That means this impulse is still present when they are on their downward spiral. If you get trained to do something a certain way and it is successful in the past but it stops being successful the natural impulse is to do the old thing even harder. You can see this impulse if you ever see someone say something like " I want to do this and go back to the good ol days when things were going right".

The right move is to pivot and change stuff a little bit but that requires a little bit of careful thought to figure out. Not something that Nick possesses anymore if he ever did.

And I think Nick thinks that more people will pay attention to him and give him money if he seems wealthy. Kind of like how someone like Andrew Tate acts much more wealthy than he probably actually is.


Part of what makes content creators into lolcows so often is the thing that grows their viewerbase and the thing that strokes their ego are the same thing.

That would be smart, but I really don't think Nick will do that (to his detriment if Randazza is really feeding him the libel-proof angle).

I think Nick might have at one point thought to get rid of Randazza if the slapp stuff failed, as @Captain Manning pointed out.

But Randazza, ever the scheming backstabber that he is, might be trying to manipulate Nick before by altering his perceptions of certain aspects of the legal system beforehand. You can do this type of thing by discussing things with people and arguing in the standard way long before it even comes up. People tend to be guarded when they can see that you might want to lie to them but they tend to believe people when they think they have no reason to lie, which is why you do this way before and you set people's general beliefs in place before it comes up.

Nick's weird Homoerotic stuff would also make this easier to pull off successfully.

If any of this is true Randazza really is a slippery fuck.

I still think Nick will fire him if the slapp thing fails but upon reflection I can see Randazza worming his way into not being fired. He would like to get New BMW money afterall.

I disagree on this fact. Nick had the desire to monetise, but when people (especially the Farms) started looking at Nick's claims in the aftermath of him telling the old audience to 'fuck off', Nick experienced (for perhaps one of the few times in his life) a critical evaluation and saw his clout as inadequate.

The Farms went from shouting PULL-UP, PULL-UP to RETARD RETARD RETARD.

Spoiler: For those that don't know this is a reference to this

https://youtu.be/zvVa3W8XiP4?si=O7IhRqlJwQDcx_z7&t=13

 

[Owlbear]

If any of this is true Randazza really is a slippery fuck.

If I know anything in this world, it's that a Vegas-based guido lawyer who works for the porn industry is definitely a slippery fuck.

It's unclear to me though where all of this stuff is coming from, and whether Rekieta has even asked Randazza if his ideas about defamation law are correct. However, from my past interactions with lawyers, I sort of assume that Randazza is taking Nick's word on the factual stuff (eg Monty's online reputation), and when he says "it sounds like he's defamation-proof" Nick takes that as confirmation of "he's defamation-proof."

 

[AnOminous]

How many times during the Vic case did he state that the only lawyer, he didn't include Ty in that but I do, worth their shit was the cheap strip mall lawyer.

I thought that was just an objective fact. The objectively worst excuse for a human in the case got the best lawyer, and yes, that was objectively the strip mall lawyer.

People on this thread (including me) were saying that even before Ty utterly beclowned himself.

However, from my past interactions with lawyers, I sort of assume that Randazza is taking Nick's word on the factual stuff (eg Monty's online reputation), and when he says "it sounds like he's defamation-proof" Nick takes that as confirmation of "he's defamation-proof."

I don't think Randazza is actually dumb enough to take Nick's statements as literal fact, but they're the position of his client, and his client is himself an attorney, of sorts, so he's probably free and clear of any numinous ethical obligations under 8.4 or the like for taking his client for a ride by strictly and literally taking his client's factual as well as legal opinions as having any merit whatsoever.

In short, he's scrupulously doing exactly what he's being paid to do, by a client who has a legal education and is not a layperson being taken advantage of. Is Nick a retard? Yes, of course. However, he's chosen to spend his money in this absolutely retarded manner, and I for one can't blame Randazza for taking his piles of Benjamins eagerly.

If I know anything in this world, it's that a Vegas-based guido lawyer who works for the porn industry is definitely a slippery fuck.

He's kind of a "no conflict, no interest" kind of guy if you know what I mean.

If any of this is true Randazza really is a slippery fuck.

And sometimes this is exactly what you want. It's literally what you're paying for. You want to take a look at his current roster of clients to make sure they are not on the opposite side and aren't paying more than you are.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Please tell me you are not serious.

Do you understand that requiring somebody to prove a negative is a logical fallacy?

No, obviously I don't expect him to prove the negative, I'd just like to see if he's clearly denied it at some point.

 

[break these cuffs]

No, obviously I don't expect him to prove the negative, I'd just like to see if he's clearly denied it at some point.

I've never see you deny you're a diddler either. Guess you are until you prove you aren't in my eyes. You absolute thread derailing mongoloid.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I've never see you deny you're a diddler either. Guess you are until you prove you aren't in my eyes. You absolute thread derailing mongoloid.

I'm not. There, see how easy that was?

 

[Swole McPole]

Tell me you're not a pedo, Monty. I'm willing to believe you, I just haven't seen it yet. I've seen a whole lot of mad about people saying it, but I haven't seen a denial, and that strikes me as weird.

Suing somebody for defamation seems to me to be to be a perfect denial. Actions speak far louder than words.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Suing somebody for defamation seems to me to be to be a perfect denial. Actions speak far louder than words.

Silencing someone is not a denial.

 

[break these cuffs]

Welp, put Kosher on ignore after my last post. Guess he'll forever be a pedo in my mind. Never denied it.