- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
He didn't sue O'Keefe, he just represented Veritas.
Steve Quest (p/k/a Montagraph) vs. Nicholas Robert Rekieta & Rekieta Law, LLC (2023)
- Thread starter Useful_Mistake
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
That's what I mean. He is the attorney for Veritas against O'Keefe.
Nick wasn't happy with that.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2015
There's an awful lot of bullshit there for The Hardship to play with.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
I'm sure if Rekieta pays Montagraph as much as he's paying Randazza, Monty will be happy to let the defamatory statement slide as well.
Marco shoulda stuck to porn. Defamation doesn't appear to be his thing.
- Joined
- May 31, 2024
How do they get around the 554.19 restriction?
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2016
According to Randazza's own webzone his firm will advise clients on the best course of action, but will ultimately defer to and support the client's requests so long as they do not violate ethical rules:
(source, archive)
Between that and the large drop in quality compared to the attempt to apply Colorado's anti SLAPP law, I suspect this was Nick's idea and Randazza couldn't/wouldn't talk him out of it. If it were anyone else I'd say it's unethical to bill a client for such a futile motion, but Nick has it coming.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
So everything then, given that Randazza does not believe selling out his client to the highest bidder is unethical
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
Technically, this is true of all law firms and the client is actually in charge of pretty much every aspect of legal strategy. Practically, your law firm usually has a very strong set of recommendations as to what you ought to decide to do. Tactical stuff, like motion drafting and so on, is fully up to the lawyers. That is, unless you are the Barneswalker and allow your client to draft motions that you sign. Randazza probably sells out harder than a normal lawyer, though.According to Randazza's own webzone his firm will advise clients on the best course of action, but will ultimately defer to and support the client's requests so long as they do not violate ethical rules:
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
I'm willing to believe that Nick told them to argue his sobriety both ways, but I doubt he told them "Make it look sloppy and retarded".
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
This is actually a very good statement of the ethics of client representation. The client is the captain of the case.
That is the case even if the client is mentally retarded.
I hope Randazza milks this faggot dry.
Kipersonapiscesotter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2024
The statute makes it clear it doesn't apply to cases before August 1st 2024. This case was filed in 2023. Either Nick made his lawyer file that bullshit, or they are trying to run up Monty's bill so he taps out.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2023
After reading footnote 2, I scrolled back up to check which thread I was in.
I knew Nick was stupid, but paying Randazza rates for this shit is ridiculous.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2018
"Your honor, I feel like I've proven that Mr Quest was cock-a-doodle looney toon before I met the guy so there should be absolutely no harm in me accusing him of sexually assaulting children with absolutely no proof and then taunting him to sue me. I move to dismiss with prejudice and award me fees, 2 new hot wives, and keg filled with ye."
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
Sean covered the filing last night, although he seemed off his game a bit:
Should be timestamped loosely to the start. I really don't see how this isn't frivolous filing on Nick's part/behalf, but IANAL.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2023
I see he's matching Nick's "screaming incoherently at a woman" energy.
Maraschino
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
Nick went to law school. He had previously (during Mignogna's case) commented extensively on anti-SLAPP, so he can't feign ignorance. Randazza can say it's pointless as much as he wants, but Nick can't claim he didn't know better (not that that'd help him).
Seeing as the anti-SLAPP they're trying to use specifically doesn't apply to this lawsuit because it was file a year prior, Hardin would be able to file a relatively short response indicating this entire motion is fucking pointless, would he not?
"Your Honor, this anti-SLAPP motion the defendant is attempting to use is for cases brought in 2024 onwards, and this case was brought in 2023. It therefore should not apply, everything else he said is bullshit."
Most of us aren't attorneys but it was written in language that seems pretty clear cut this shit doesn't apply.
I can believe Randazza told him to stop being a sped suggesting frivolous motions, but Nick wanted it anyways.
Nick has also said in a stream years ago that he might just start mentioning Montagraph in random streams, so Monty's attorney would have to watch the streams and drive up the costs for Monty. Surely that kind of statement in combination with an obviously frivolous motion couldn't backfire on Nick years after the fact...right?
Right?
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
You know, I bet Hardin was thrilled at the chance to add an "I Beat Randazza Law Singlehandedly" feather to his cap for minimal effort.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I can't see Judge SJW going for something he flat out rejected already, so I'm sure Randazza is hoping for another nice pricey interlocutory appeal.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2021
Rekieta once stated that he does not believe in having a rigid legal strategy. In his view, the optimal way to practice law involves invoking every possible argument or defense that may favor the client.
This "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach has become quite apparent both in his criminal matters and now in his civil case.
One could argue that having a client with deep pockets, combined with this throw-everything approach, is a financial dream come true for any attorney.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Larry Flynt's lawyer said something very similar.
"Rich and always in trouble."