Catgirl Tyranid
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
Randazza likely laughing along with us all the way to the bank.
Nick, you turbo-retard, time to sell the Mustang?
Nick, you turbo-retard, time to sell the Mustang?
Steve Quest (p/k/a Montagraph) vs. Nicholas Robert Rekieta & Rekieta Law, LLC (2023)
- Thread starter Useful_Mistake
- Start date
Anasûrimbor Kellhus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 9, 2022
ah jeez dude how many lines of lady rackets is nick gonna need to cope with this one?
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
Technically its the second funniest outcome. Funniest would have been winning the appeal but then the lower court ruling the case beats the anti-SLAPP anyway.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
I think him winning this and still losing on Anti-Slapp would have been way more funny. At any rate, good for Montagraph. I had no faith that Anti-Slapp would protect Nick, but good for him that Nick didn't get the chance either way.
Actually, I found this part really interesting:
I kinda wish they resolved this question. By the definition of substantive law, anti-SLAPP seems to fit. But, also, summary judgement (closest analogue) is procedural, if my memory serves. @AnOminous , help me out here. Am I wrong on Summary Judgement?
Agreed.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Dammit Nick, we lost the case again!
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
It's a nonprecedential opinion. Note that this does not preclude Quest v. Rekieta being cited somewhere as persuasive, albeit nonbinding, authority.
As most people should have been able to predict, the appeals court didn't agree with Rekieta's argument that the CO anti-SLAPP was constitutional in MN. Given that, it was always a stretch to see them rule in his favor.
The letters from both sides regarding pending MN legislation were ignored because they did not follow the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure
The letter from Rekieta's side about the Coomer case was ignored for the same reason, but Monty's side's letter was not ignored as it was deemed to comply with the rules
THE COURT CITED THE COOMER CASES
As most people should have been able to predict, the appeals court didn't agree with Rekieta's argument that the CO anti-SLAPP was constitutional in MN. Given that, it was always a stretch to see them rule in his favor.
The letters from both sides regarding pending MN legislation were ignored because they did not follow the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure
The letter from Rekieta's side about the Coomer case was ignored for the same reason, but Monty's side's letter was not ignored as it was deemed to comply with the rules
THE COURT CITED THE COOMER CASES
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
No fren, you don't take the L. Rackets does, and then he goes to Pure Pleasure for several diseased Ds
Edit: Hi Nick, hope you're having a great Monday! You know what I find helps you get through the Mondays? Another drink!
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
I disagree. I think this is the funniest outcome because if Randazza won, Nick could cope all the money he spent was worth it because it forced Fischer to consider and apply Colorado SLAPP. He would have gotten weeks or months of gloating on his show. He has pretty clear contempt for both Schneider and Fischer, and this decision lays out they were both right all along.
He didn't get shit outta this. This is a total L. Compete and utter.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
2/5 points at issue went for Nick, 3/5 for Montagraph. Pretty close, but eh; not Nick's day.
That was always make it or break it. Tough for Nick.
Nah, I have to own up to when I was wrong.
Huh, I didn't consider that. An interesting perspective.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2024
If you live in Minnesota (or any neighboring state for that mater) it might be time to hide your liquor bottles. Soon the yellow swinger will be prowling, looking for its next victim.
Pleasant surprise for me since I thought Monty's lawyer seemed much more bumbling and unintelligible during the oral arguments, but of course I know jack shit about the actual law and that is what matters.
Pleasant surprise for me since I thought Monty's lawyer seemed much more bumbling and unintelligible during the oral arguments, but of course I know jack shit about the actual law and that is what matters.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Yeah, it looked to me like the Judges liked Randazza's arguments more, but I guess they had time to look past the pretty smile
WatterBottle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2024
Will this continue to discovery?
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
I'm gonna COOM(er).
Yeah, the Leflar choice-of-law went 2 to Nick (predictability of result, and maintenance of interstate order), 3 to Monty (simplification of the judicial task, advancement of the forum’s governmental interest, and application of the better rule of law) . I thought it was a clear cut Monty W but eh, a dub is a dub for Montegraph. 20k raised for his crowd-funding well-spent.
Does Balldoman appeal to State Supreme Court, or does he take his L back to judge mommy (but moooooom, I ACKshually represented her for free)? Better question, can he now afford to keep paying Randazza?
Also, I'm happy Randazza takes an L. Fuck that guy.
Edit to add:
Barring another appeal, it will. The schedule was still a ways out, going from memory.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Yeah.
To the Supreme Court of Minnesota? Nick, please, that'd be funny.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2023
Such wonderful news for lolsuit enjoyers. I suppose the next big thing to wait for is if it reaches the inside of a court room. Any bets on if Nick tries to prevent cameras in court to own the damn Kiwi Farms?
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2021
I feel like this should be featured with the estimated dollar amount Rekieta wasted on Randazza.
If he streams tonight (big if), how drunk do you think he will be? Like Hilary Clinton on Election night angry drunk?
If he streams tonight (big if), how drunk do you think he will be? Like Hilary Clinton on Election night angry drunk?
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
It's Monday, so that's already one strike against streaming. But if he does, yes. Hillary drunk. Calling out "John" drunk. "April appearing on cam, crawling out from the corner and/or ceiling" drunk.
- Joined
- May 11, 2019
I smell a settlement, which would be the least funny for us, the smartest for Rackets.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
He could have settled for the full amount Monte was asking for, before the case went to court, for less than he has already paid Randazza. In fact, he's probably 2x-3x in the hole (Monte was asking for around 50k, and Randazza is probably north of 100k after the appeal hearing) as compared to the requested damages.
A non-idiot would have settled. But thankfully, lolsuit.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
It might be because you don't follow the Rekieta thread. He called Schneider a "retard and a cuck" just last week in anticipation of this decision.
Well, that "retard and cuck" just beat what is allegedly the best 1A attorney in the county.
Trust me, if he won this, he would have been insufferable for however long it took for this to get back to Fischer. With Nick, it's about exerting power over his enemies. He would have wanted nothing more than to force Fischer (a judge he clearly doesn't like) to do something. With this, he doesn't get that. He has to accept Fischer and Schneider won this round. Or try for a hail marry to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
That was my thought near the end, and I was bracing for it.
However, it's also possible they were probing for any reason to side with Randazza, and he just didn't get them there. Oral arguments can be misleading.
Monty raised about 14k. Just shy of his 15k goal.
However, the bigger thing is that Nick probably spent WAY more on this than Monty did. Randazza ain't cheap.
The estimate is rough, but yeah, this ABSOLUTELY needs to be featured. Null featured the last court outcome where Fischer ruled against Nick, thus triggering this appeal.