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

[Useful_Mistake]

Are you twisting "I could, but I'm too lazy" into "he's a liar so he's definitely doing it" or are you just making this up entirely?

I mean, it would be the current Nick thing to do.

Taking a PPP small business loan for the purpose of paying your business expenses including employee salaries and then applying for loan forgiveness on the basis that you used the funds for those intended purposes isn't fraud, it was literally the reason why the PPP loan program existed. It was why they offered forgiveness.

Did it count in businesses where the loan requester is the sole employee? It's not a dig at your statement, I genuinely don't remember

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

If Nick gets arrested for not paying fines and they find another mountain of coke I would be so happy.

 

[Harm]

Did it count in businesses where the loan requester is the sole employee?

Sole proprietorships could take PPP loans and would be eligible for loan forgiveness. The rules around it are a little more complex, but it was an option. It wasn't inherently fraudulent in a legal sense.

It can be seen as disgusting for other reasons (he quite obviously didn't need the money and wastes that much multiple times over on shitty art he keeps in shoddy poster frames), but it's not illegal.

 

[AnOminous]

Are you twisting "I could, but I'm too lazy" into "he's a liar so he's definitely doing it" or are you just making this up entirely?

It's just his dumbfuck variant of the "I guess I drank like two beers" that every drunken driver says on camera when busted for DUI and testing at double the legal limit.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Did it count in businesses where the loan requester is the sole employee? It's not a dig at your statement, I genuinely don't remember

Yes, it counted for sole proprietorships. As far as I know, the PPP loan program was under the same eligibility requirements as the other SBA business loans. This is the list of ineligible business types:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-120/subpart-A/subject-group-ECFR6d9c2c4fd6e44c1/section-120.110

edit: it appears that the PPP loan was actually more inclusive than other SBA loans, as it specifically says that nonprofits were eligible, and indicates that a number of other SBA loan requirements were waived. More found in the full PDF here: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP--Fact-Sheet.pdf

They explicitly promoted the loans as forgivable, provided that the loans were used primarily to cover payroll costs and to a lesser extent other costs of owning a business property, and as long as there were no layoffs/wage cuts.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Taking a PPP small business loan for the purpose of paying your business expenses including employee salaries and then applying for loan forgiveness on the basis that you used the funds for those intended purposes isn't fraud, it was literally the reason why the PPP loan program existed. It was why they offered forgiveness.

Did it count in businesses where the loan requester is the sole employee? It's not a dig at your statement, I genuinely don't remember

There's something critical that you are both missing: he took the loan for his law firm which was effectively defunct at this time as he was already a full-time streamer.

Despite that, Nick lied, claiming there was 1 job associated with Rekieta Law (the law firm, not the YouTube channel) when the proper answer was 0.

Nick's attorney in this case with Monty has specified that his law firm, Rekieta Law, has nothing to do with his streaming activity, and the couple of cases which MCRO confirms Nick as being involved in in 2021 are either cases where Nick has confirmed he was pro bono or where there is strong reason to suspect he was pro bono.

Here's a page with info on his loan, note "offices of lawyers" in the industry field below.



I believe that the case with the embezzlement lady was ongoing at this point and Nick hadn't engaged in his shower call elevator chat yet, but that was pro bono.

Other than that case, MCRO reports that he filed a single certificate of representation in all of 2021. It was for a civil case and Nick's least favorite judge handed him the W by dismissing the case the next day.

The problem with that is that Nick's client was also a local friend and fellow streamer: Quinton, the guy who had some sort of falling out with Drexel. There is a very solid chance that was pro bono as well, but even if it wasn't that was only one minor case that was dismissed within a day of Nick filing a certificate of representation.

In fact beyond Quinton and embezzlement lady in 2021, I don't think Nick represented anyone ever again who was not either himself, his co-defendant wife, or his live-in coke whore... Though, in Nick's defense with April, she wasn't technically living with him when he first filed a certificate of representation in her traffic case, though she was by the time he failed to appear for her hearing.

It's pretty obvious that many people defending Nick in 2021 believed that Nick actually retained some sort of limited legal practice where he provided legal services in exchange for payment. There is no reason to believe that is the case, and there is certainly zero evidence of that on MCRO.

In other words, this is correct:

self-admitted PPP loan fraud (2021/2022 streams IIRC)

 

[Useful_Mistake]

and there is certainly zero evidence of that on MCRO.

Not all cases reach "real" courts. Minnesota has that weird mandatory system where the case gets tried for some time by mail, and only if that fails does it become a "real" case in "real" courts. They call it "hip pocket service"/"pocket filing". So, Devil's Advocate, but he could have been doing some work that just didn't reach "real" courts.

https://www.leschlawfirm.com/being-served-in-minnesota/

Nick attempted once (2 years ago) to explain it to his friend in two hours. Uncivil law wanted to shoot himself after hearing about it, IIRC:

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

There's something critical that you are both missing: he took the loan for his law firm which was effectively defunct at this time as he was already a full-time streamer.

Despite that, Nick lied, claiming there was 1 job associated with Rekieta Law (the law firm, not the YouTube channel) when the proper answer was 0.

Nick's attorney in this case with Monty has specified that his law firm, Rekieta Law, has nothing to do with his streaming activity, and the couple of cases which MCRO confirms Nick as being involved in in 2021 are either cases where Nick has confirmed he was pro bono or where there is strong reason to suspect he was pro bono.

Here's a page with info on his loan, note "offices of lawyers" in the industry field below.

I think that if the IRS wanted to drag this out, they might pin something on him, but they are not likely to do so.

Everything is presumptively legal until you are caught. Nick will trade of this principle and pass it off as 'innocent until proven guilty'.

 

[Kosher Salt]

There's something critical that you are both missing: he took the loan for his law firm which was effectively defunct at this time as he was already a full-time streamer.

Despite that, Nick lied, claiming there was 1 job associated with Rekieta Law (the law firm, not the YouTube channel) when the proper answer was 0.

The Rekieta Law, LLC is effectively inseparable from his streaming job, and always has been. It's literally a defendant in this lawsuit over shit that he said while he was streaming.

Rekieta Media was just a company that he set up in Texas back during the KickVic era, because if one of the KickVic assholes tried to sue him he wanted to try to use Texas' anti-slapp law. Whether he's done any actual business under the Rekieta Media LLC is debatable. All of his branding is Rekieta Law.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It's literally a defendant in this lawsuit over shit that he said while he was streaming.

It's worth pointing out that it is the wrong defendant, though I don't really recall Nick seriously contesting that.

Whether he's done any actual business under the Rekieta Media LLC is debatable. All of his branding is Rekieta Law.

True, but it's all owned by his Texas company

Whether that would stand up in court is another matter

 

[Kosher Salt]

It's worth pointing out that it is the wrong defendant, though I don't really recall Nick seriously contesting that.

Whether that would stand up in court is another matter

I think it'd be difficult to argue. Not that it wouldn't be worth trying, maybe, but it'd be a tough argument.

I actually don't think it would be worth even trying, because Nick's named personally as a defendant anyway, so getting the Rekieta Law LLC dismissed wouldn't accomplish much of anything. But that's legal strategy issue that Nick and his lawyer would have to decide.

(It would've been more relevant, and stronger, in a "the plaintiff is in Texas, the defendant is also in Texas, we need to move this case to Texas and have a Texas court consider our anti-slapp motion" case.)

 

[AnOminous]

(It would've been more relevant, and stronger, in a "the plaintiff is in Texas, the defendant is also in Texas, we need to move this case to Texas and have a Texas court consider our anti-slapp motion" case.)

The corporation is basically an alter-ego. Jurisdictionally, a corporation is a domiciliary of both the state where it is incorporated and the state where it conducts its business. Where is the place this "business" has its headquarters or conducts most of its business? That would be Minnesota, Balldo-Land.

It might have cost Monty a bit to pierce the corporate veil, as it were, but these dumbass Rekieta corporations are basically Nick. There is no separation between their activities. I doubt this coked-out retarded freak has done anything that would preserve the separate corporate identity. Even sovereign citizens do better when setting up corporate bullshit.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

The Rekieta Law, LLC is effectively inseparable from his streaming job, and always has been. It's literally a defendant in this lawsuit over shit that he said while he was streaming.

Rekieta Media was just a company that he set up in Texas back during the KickVic era, because if one of the KickVic assholes tried to sue him he wanted to try to use Texas' anti-slapp law. Whether he's done any actual business under the Rekieta Media LLC is debatable. All of his branding is Rekieta Law.

It's worth pointing out that it is the wrong defendant, though I don't really recall Nick seriously contesting that.

True, but it's all owned by his Texas company
View attachment 6198189
Whether that would stand up in court is another matter

Seeing Nick's top-tier legal arguments falling flat in his family case and defamantion, I wonder now how much of a shite show it would have been if his Weeb War enemies did sue him, and Nick tried to rely on the TX media company and rules. Would Randazza be leaching more money from him as he is more flush with liquid cash? Would he bave been able to effectively grift off that when his mask was still firmly in place?

 

[Balldo's Gate]

The Rekieta Law, LLC is effectively inseparable from his streaming job, and always has been. It's literally a defendant in this lawsuit over shit that he said while he was streaming.

Rekieta Media was just a company that he set up in Texas back during the KickVic era, because if one of the KickVic assholes tried to sue him he wanted to try to use Texas' anti-slapp law. Whether he's done any actual business under the Rekieta Media LLC is debatable. All of his branding is Rekieta Law.

Well, Nick Rekieta and his lawyer totally disagree with you. They say that Rekieta Law, LLC has NOTHING to do with the streaming channel Rekieta Law.

"the firm is separate from the online video program."

 

[Kosher Salt]

Well, Nick Rekieta and his lawyer totally disagree with you. They say that Rekieta Law, LLC has NOTHING to do with the streaming channel Rekieta Law.

"the firm is separate from the online video program."

That's all bloviation until he puts his money where his mouth is and files a motion for the LLC's dismissal / summary judgement.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

That's all bloviation until he puts his money where his mouth is and files a motion for the LLC's dismissal / summary judgement.

He literally filed a motion to dismiss and then in the arguments said that "at a minimum" the LLC should be dismissed on that basis.

I would recommend reading the filings before making sweeping statements about them.

 

[Kosher Salt]

He literally filed a motion to dismiss and then in the arguments said that "at a minimum" the LLC should be dismissed on that basis.

I would recommend reading the filings before making sweeping statements about them.

A denial in the response where you normally just deny almost everything, a footnote in his anti-slapp motion to dismiss under a completely different legal argument, and a brief side-note in the reply brief in support of the anti-slapp motion. That's not much more than a token effort to preserve the argument.

 

[PyrrhicRustle]

Uncivil law wanted to shoot himself after hearing about it

Does he ever not want to shoot himself?

 

[Balldo's Gate]

pointless bullshit

Was Rekieta lying when he claimed that Rekieta Law LLC was his job in 2021 or was he lying when he insisted that Rekieta Law LLC had nothing to do with his streaming business in relation to this case?

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

Was Rekieta lying

or was he lying

Yes.