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

[PyrrhicRustle]

If he had any sense, he would never have hired Randazza for this anyway. He would have hired some local willing to look past what a piece of shit he is and settled.

One could argue that if he had any sense he wouldn’t go off confidently yelling about how someone is an active and voracious pedophile in the first place, never mind doubling down on the claim at every possible opportunity.

 

[Pentamidine]

I was trying to find out if there was some reasonable explanation for how Rendaza missed the whole "this shit ain't retroactive" part of the statute. Grok, Google's AI, and Bing's AI all three told me the rule was retroactive for any lawsuit not totally resolved before the enactment date of the statute.








I looked around and saw this at the bottom of the bill text I found regarding the new anti-slapp law which might explain why the AIs are confused:

Sec. 17.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
This article is effective the day following final enactment and applies to a civil action pending on or commenced on or after that date.

Despite saying this a few sections above. First, from the bill:

Section 13.
Savings clause.
Provides that the UPEPA does not affect actions brought before the effective date of these sections

And from the mn gov website on the statute:

554.19 SAVINGS CLAUSE.​

Sections 554.07 to 554.19 do not affect a cause of action asserted before May 25, 2024, in a civil action or a motion under Minnesota Statutes 2022, sections 554.01 to 554.06, regarding the cause of action.

Now I'm not suggesting Randaza was cutting corners and ripping off Nick, but it would be super fuckin funny if he just asked whatever AI if it was retroactive and just went along with that. I don't understand how else they would just miss it. It's not like they posited some novel theory of law or anything they just either pretended the savings clause wasn't there or genuinely didn't realize it was there.

 

[Captain Manning]

If he had any sense, he would never have hired Randazza for this anyway. He would have hired some local willing to look past what a piece of shit he is and settled.

It was widely discussed, around the time this case was filed, that it made a certain amount of sense to hire Randazza to try and apply Colorado's anti-SLAPP. It was a novel idea that was probably worth a shot (mind you, this was before people really wised up to how awful Nick was, and how his claims about Monty were utterly baseless).

That having failed, it makes absolutely no sense to keep Randazza now, or not settle. Randazza's recent argument here is so awful, it's stunning to think that his earlier anti-SLAPP argument, and this one, were crafted by the same person.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It was widely discussed, around the time this case was filed, that it made a certain amount of sense to hire Randazza to try and apply Colorado's anti-SLAPP.

Colorado's Anti-SLAPP never made sense in part because no party was in Colorado (reminder, Montagraph deliberately lied to his lawyer, the court and the defense about this). That said, if I recall correctly, I was under the opinion that Colorado law should have applied, but the anti-slapp motion should have been denied. I think that was the result I expected from the appellate court, and I turned out to have been very wrong.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

Colorado's Anti-SLAPP never made sense in part because no party was in Colorado (reminder, Montagraph deliberately lied to his lawyer, the court and the defense about this). That said, if I recall correctly, I was under the opinion that Colorado law should have applied, but the anti-slapp motion should have been denied. I think that was the result I expected from the appellate court, and I turned out to have been very wrong.

Yeah I think at the time a lot of people were thinking it would be funnier if Nick won the appeal, the appellate court sent it back to Judge Pussy Liquor and told her to consider the CO anti-SLAPP law and she still denied it.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Now I'm not suggesting Randaza was cutting corners and ripping off Nick, but it would be super fuckin funny if he just asked whatever AI if it was retroactive and just went along with that.

Randazza doesn’t do that low-level research shit himself. It was probably a paralegal who went digging. But when you’re making it the cornerstone of your entire fucking defense, you’d think the lead attorney would double-check such crucial details himself.

Or not. Either way: LOL.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Yeah I think at the time a lot of people were thinking it would be funnier if Nick won the appeal, the appellate court sent it back to Judge Pussy Liquor and told her to consider the CO anti-SLAPP law and she still denied it.

It's not just that it would be funny, but it also literally did not meet the criteria of what the law was aimed to protect. Succeeding on that was basically impossible, imo.

That’s my take on it as well, I think the appellate court should rule it has jurisdiction to hear this appeal, rule in Nick’s favor and order the lower court to apply Colorado law, and then Colorado should still deny his anti-slap motion because as Defamation is an exception to the First Amendment (R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) ) naturally, false statements of fact would not be in “furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States constitution” (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-1101)

 

[East_Clintwood]

I was trying to find out if there was some reasonable explanation for how Rendaza missed the whole "this shit ain't retroactive" part of the statute.

Randazza didn't miss the retroactive part, he addressed it in a footnote, arguing that the motion to extend deadlines that was agreed to when Hardin took over allows it. Personally I think that's such a patently bullshit argument that it probably merits sanctions, but it does show Randazza is aware of the savings clause, he just doesn't give a shit.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

The best part is knowing how fucking furious Nick was to read Hardin’s filing. I’m really not surprised he couldn’t bring himself to go on camera last night despite his promise to stream. Nick was solely focused on seething.

Imagine what a pleasant evening the children must have had as hostages of this self-centered ragebeast.

It would be so funny if Nick tries to use this fuckup as a pretense for withholding payment from Randazza. He’s certainly done dumber shit.

No, the best part is knowing that Nick mortgaged and sold his second house in order to pay his legal fees. Every time he drives down the street or looks through his backyard, he’ll remember the cost of his abject retardation.

 

[AnOminous]

That having failed, it makes absolutely no sense to keep Randazza now, or not settle. Randazza's recent argument here is so awful, it's stunning to think that his earlier anti-SLAPP argument, and this one, were crafted by the same person.

The prior argument was Randazza trying to win something. I think the strategy has turned, as Hardin argues, to straight up just trying to derail the case. As for the no-show, this was either legitimate retardation or profoundly unprofessional.

Even if Nick, the broke-dick loser with no money, is no longer paying him, he owed it at least to the court to notify them. Again, though, I think the no-show was quite possibly deliberate, again part of a derailing strategy.

Also I am pretty sure Randazza does know damn well the statute is explicitly not retroactive. That's why he studiously avoided the issue entirely, and even buried the only timeliness argument he had in a footnote.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

The prior argument was Randazza trying to win something. I think the strategy has turned, as Hardin argues, to straight up just trying to derail the case.

Agreed. I think Nick just wants to try and make Monty pay as much as possible to try and bully him into dropping the case.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Mr. Hardin certainly seems to think it's a blatant stall:
View attachment 7527267

Hardin has been forged in the fires of vexatious litigation and tempered in legal bullshit. Monty wasn't wrong when he said he has "experience" with these "internet things".

 

[Swole McPole]

Who says "This was a normal human error"?

Excusable neglect, surely?

If he had any sense, he would never have hired Randazza for this anyway. He would have hired some local willing to look past what a piece of shit he is and settled.

It's still hilarious to me that he thought he was going to milk this case for content and donations. When I first learned about the Monty defamation lawsuit, I knew nothing about the weeb wars stuff so the whole thing just seemed like the ravings of a mentally ill lawyer. But even after I'd figured out how he'd managed to persuade himself that that could be a possible plan, it still seemed retarded that anybody might think it was a good plan. A sensible plan. A productive use of somebody's time and money.

When he could have just apologized, withdrew the statement and made a charitable donation of a few grand to make the whole thing go away. It was pretty obvious Monty was after the moral victory rather than a cash windfall. But there's no point in asking a narcissist to apologize. It's beyond their capabilities. f

 

[break these cuffs]

Excusable neglect, surely?



It's still hilarious to me that he thought he was going to milk this case for content and donations. When I first learned about the Monty defamation lawsuit, I knew nothing about the weeb wars stuff so the whole thing just seemed like the ravings of a mentally ill lawyer. But even after I'd figured out how he'd managed to persuade himself that that could be a possible plan, it still seemed retarded that anybody might think it was a good plan. A sensible plan. A productive use of somebody's time and money.

When he could have just apologized, withdrew the statement and made a charitable donation of a few grand to make the whole thing go away. It was pretty obvious Monty was after the moral victory rather than a cash windfall. But there's no point in asking a narcissist to apologize. It's beyond their capabilities. f

Nick wasn't trying to recreate Weeb Wars with Monty. He was trying to recreate the OG lolsuit between Maddox and MadDax. Nick could larp as Dax, his first mancrush, while also feeding his victim complex. Monty was supposed to be an easily lampooned villain who talked about how cool it was to be a pedo with no case and an incompetent attorney.

The plan was doomed from the start because Nick is a wetbrained retard.

 

[AnOminous]

But even after I'd figured out how he'd managed to persuade himself that that could be a possible plan, it still seemed retarded that anybody might think it was a good plan. A sensible plan.

It just shows what a crackhead retard Nick is that he thought the crowd of people who were so furious about Vic Mignogna being falsely defamed for, among other things, utterly nonsensical claims of pedophilia, would turn around and support some druggie jackass falsely accusing someone of outright molesting children.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

It's still hilarious to me that he thought he was going to milk this case for content and donations. When I first learned about the Monty defamation lawsuit, I knew nothing about the weeb wars stuff so the whole thing just seemed like the ravings of a mentally ill lawyer. But even after I'd figured out how he'd managed to persuade himself that that could be a possible plan, it still seemed retarded that anybody might think it was a good plan. A sensible plan. A productive use of somebody's time and money.

When he could have just apologized, withdrew the statement and made a charitable donation of a few grand to make the whole thing go away. It was pretty obvious Monty was after the moral victory rather than a cash windfall. But there's no point in asking a narcissist to apologize. It's beyond their capabilities.

Nick was right on one minor point: If he settled with Monty, he might have opened the floodgates for old enemies to sue him and leverage the settlement against him. His own action of being insufferable put him in the position...

 

[Swole McPole]

Nick was right on one minor point: If he settled with Monty, he might have opened the floodgates for old enemies to sue him and leverage the settlement against him. His own action of being insufferable put him in the position...

I don't think so. I don't think he's been that careless about defaming people prior to Monty. It's really hard to sue people for defamation in the US and he wasn't accusing all and sundry of being kiddy fiddlers. The defamation against Montagraph was so egregious -- particularly because it was coming from the lips of a somebody who presents themselves publicly as a legal expert. Yes, yes, we all know that's a joke today, but at the time Rekieta was the lawpope. King of the YouTube lawyers. If he's insisting that Monty is a paedophile on YouTube, people are much less likely to think 'Oh, this is just one of those Elon Musk deals. He's just insulting him. No big deal.' Rather, they're much more likely to think, 'This guy is a famous YouTube lawyer. He knows what the law on defamation is in Minnesota. He knows that a statement like that is defamatory per se. For him to be saying it, it really has to be true.'

I think he said it because he was ruinously drunk and got careless. Had he not been rat arsed pissed, I very much doubt he'd have said something so stupid. Note he's been scrupulously careful about not making similar allegations since.

And once he'd said it, his vanity and his arrogance wouldn't let him back down. Plus he didn't think Monty would have the funds to sue. It's really hard to find a lawyer who'll take on a defamation case on a contingency fee basis. So I think those things made him cocky.

I find it fairly easy to put myself into Rekeita's shoes. When I was younger, I was a big mouthed moron as well. I'd often run my yap. Mostly because I had no assets to protect. So I don't fault him for saying that shit. I fault him for not apologizing and retracting when Monty made it clear he was going to seek legal advice.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I don't think so. I don't think he's been that careless about defaming people prior to Monty. It's really hard to sue people for defamation in the US and he wasn't accusing all and sundry of being kiddy fiddlers. The defamation against Montagraph was so egregious -- particularly because it was coming from the lips of a somebody who presents themselves publicly as a legal expert. Yes, yes, we all know that's a joke today, but at the time Rekieta was the lawpope. King of the YouTube lawyers. If he's insisting that Monty is a paedophile on YouTube, people are much less likely to think 'Oh, this is just one of those Elon Musk deals. He's just insulting him. No big deal.' Rather, they're much more likely to think, 'This guy is a famous YouTube lawyer. He knows what the law on defamation is in Minnesota. He knows that a statement like that is defamatory per se. For him to be saying it, it really has to be true.'

I think he said it because he was ruinously drunk and got careless. Had he not been rat arsed pissed, I very much doubt he'd have said something so stupid. Note he's been scrupulously careful about not making similar allegations since.

And once he'd said it, his vanity and his arrogance wouldn't let him back down. Plus he didn't think Monty would have the funds to sue. It's really hard to find a lawyer who'll take on a defamation case on a contingency fee basis. So I think those things made him cocky.

I find it fairly easy to put myself into Rekeita's shoes. When I was younger, I was a big mouthed moron as well. I'd often run my yap. Mostly because I had no assets to protect. So I don't fault him for saying that shit. I fault him for not apologizing and retracting when Monty made it clear he was going to seek legal advice.

How familiar are you with his pre-Rittenhouse career? Weeb Wars personalities, Weeb Wars lawyers on the other side, Keffals, and other with the MO of life ruination may just have done so. They do not have to win--just bleed him of money with crowdfunded lawsuits.

Granted, this was before his very public fall. Now, they may not even think of him at all. At the time of the Monty lawsuit, he was still very popular and liked, so I politely disagree.

 

[Swole McPole]

so I politely disagree.

You may well be right. I'm not at all familiar with his pre-Rittenhouse career. Before the Depp thing I'd seen him once or twice on one of the internet bloodsport shows. But I was paying attention by the time of Keffals (that may be what brought me over here -- I was pissed off by his being banned from YouTube so I signed up for his locals.) I don't think anything he said about Keffals would have stood a chance of surviving.

I think the US isn't like countries that follow the British legal tradition when it comes to defamation. Here, if you obviously defame somebody I think it's pretty easy to find someone who'll take it on contingency if it's a clear cut case -- because even if they only win a pound, you're getting your legal costs paid. Big win.

But in the US, most defamation cases seem to me to get thrown out at the very first stage -- the bar to success is so damn high over there. I think that was what Rekieta was counting on when he didn't back down.

 

[mindlessobserver]

There is a definite dividing line between are jamaica rekieta and post Jamaica rekieta. The "shane" stream from weeb wars was fucking kino.

Oh my god this was 6 years ago. There are people posting in this thread who were in middle school when I watched this. Where has time gone?