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

[#lurker]

Don't bother. They would have read about the case before posting if they actually gave a fuck about it.

I am so sorry for forgetting about an obscure event that happened two years ago.

And as far as I'm aware there was nothing stopping him from starting a second fund.

 

[break these cuffs]

I am so sorry for forgetting about an obscure event that happened two years ago.

And as far as I'm aware there was nothing stopping him from starting a second fund.

He did try a second push when he switched to Hardin. He raised about an extra $3k. You're terrible at this.

 

[#lurker]

He did try a second push when he switched to Hardin. He raised about an extra $3k. You're terrible at this.

Again, I deeply apologize for the transgression of forgetting a minor detail.
For the record, it wasn't a second fund, he just reposted the old fund. Obviously that wasn't going to get the same attention and eyeballs. Poor effort on Monty's part, I think he would have gotten more bites if he promoted it better.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Again

Try harder to live up to your username.

 

[#lurker]

I think some of you are being obtuse or arguing for the sake of it. I asked why he didn't crowdfund to keep it going. The answer was that he already did. Yeah, but that was two years ago. He simply reposted the same link after the lawyer change. He clearly didn't give it (or receive) the same attention. His update on the gofundme gave no details except that he changed lawyers. Point being, if he put in some minimal effort he could have raised what he needed.

Unless you're telling me there isn't enough Rekieta Alogs out there that would happily see it continue. But like I already acknowledged, I get why he would want to drop it after everything that's happened.

 

[Napoleon III]

Unless you're telling me there isn't enough Rekieta Alogs out there that would happily see it continue. But like I already acknowledged, I get why he would want to drop it after everything that's happened.

I actually agree with this heavily. If Monty really wanted the lawsuit to continue he should have tried to crowdfund better. If you said to everyone "this is getting quite financially straining on me I need more to continue this lawsuit" then he would have gotten more donations than he did.

Granted I think it may be the case that he didn't really care enough about continuing this lawsuit. He cleared his name for a lot of people and he made Nick spend a lot of money. Even if he didn't win the case he got everything he wanted.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Montagraph's IMDB page listing him as the "Rapist" in his Umbrella man movies, and his tendency to use "young children in his work." The Plaintiff did not object to the facts therein, merely to their admissibility. To this day, for over four years now (there is evidence of the page existing as far back as 2017, but the archive is broken), he has never edited his page (or contacted IMDB to do it for him) to remove any alleged falsehoods.

I'd like to do an update on this. The litigation is over. Did he finally change it and renounce his status as a "rapist" employing "young children"?

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9217446/

https://megalodon.jp/2025-0716-2124-43/https://www.imdb.com:443/name/nm9217446/

Oh, well....So that's five to eight years of not editing the IMDB. As a reminder, when Russell Greer was accused (via edits to his IMDB) of collaborating with Hitler and his goons, Russ got that changed immediately. Kinda weird that a man obsessed with self-googling and his rep never got around to it. It's not even hard to find, it's like the fourth result on Google

 

[Pentamidine]

Still from the new Elissa Clip:



So Randazza knew the anti-slapp law wouldn't apply to Nick's case. It really was just a massive frivolous motion meant to make Monty spend money responding to it, he can't even blame retardation - he knew it wasn't retroactive.

Edit: The Elissa Clip in question - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFGH7LfLYqk

 

[AnOminous]

So Randazza knew the anti-slapp law wouldn't apply to Nick's case. It really was just a massive frivolous motion meant to make Monty spend money responding to it, he can't even blame retardation - he knew it wasn't retroactive.

I don't think anyone thought he actually believed the basis for his motion because you'd have to be drop dead retarded to believe that. It does increase the level of chutzpah required to file such a piece of shit that he not only knew that but had explicitly admitted as much to another court.

 

[SterilizedGlowsticks]

Would it be an ethics violation to file motions that you provably know are based entirely on a false premise?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Would it be an ethics violation to file motions that you provably know are based entirely on a false premise?

It'd be more than an ethics violation, but, specifically as it relates to your point, there in Minnesota, yeah - Rule 3.1, Rule 3.3 of Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit the kind of conduct Randazza engaged in.

 

[AnOminous]

It'd be more than an ethics violation, but, specifically as it relates to your point, there in Minnesota, yeah - Rule 3.1, Rule 3.3 of Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit the kind of conduct Randazza engaged in.

And guess what will happen about it?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Generally frivolous litigation is now judged on an objective rather than a subjective standard, after revisions in Rule 11 of the FRCP. While that isn't applicable to state law, it reflects a general trend away from subjective requirements of actually knowingly making vexatious filings. It was nearly impossible to prove that kind of intent, so vexatious filings went nearly entirely unchecked.

Since the standard is now "objective," and something on the level of a "reasonable man" standard, the fact that Randazza more or less admitted he knew this statute was completely inapplicable, then nevertheless deliberately filed a motion advancing arguments he'd openly stated he knew were bogus to the appeals court, is irrelevant.

It is "arguable" (by a liar) that a "reasonable attorney" could come up with some nonfrivolous argument that somehow, the plain language of the statute excluding lawsuits filed before a certain date was somehow applicable to a lawsuit filed well after that date because reasons (I still think it was sanctionable).

I think Randazza knew this after reckoning that Monty was about out of money to pursue the case, so he'd obviously get away with this maneuver. He was correct.

 

[Napoleon III]

I think Randazza knew this after reckoning that Monty was about out of money to pursue the case, so he'd obviously get away with this maneuver. He was correct.

Let me ask you this question. Why couldn't Hardin file an ethics complaint against Randazza for doing this shit especially because it is so incredibly obvious that it is bullshit and Randazza admitted it? Is it a case of he could but its a bad idea and not worth it?

 

[John Andrews Stan]

IANAL. But I think Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) also prohibits offering evidence the lawyer knows to be false. Such as, for example, submitting the claim that the defendant is a lawyer when he has had his authorization to practice revoked by the state of Minnesota.

Remember: Randazza is serving pro hac vice in this case. My understanding is that the sponsoring attorney can be disciplined for Randazza pulling this shit. He has legal responsibility for Randazza’s conduct and is supposed to supervise (or at least remain actively involved in) the case — even if, in practice, that’s not always what happens. If he knew or should have known about the false filing and allowed it to proceed, he could face discipline too.

Again, IANAL. But the fact that Quest had to withdraw due to this bullshit would seem to make his case for an ethics violation more compelling. Especially as Randazza has previously faced disciplinary proceedings.

In theory, anyway. I don’t know if Monty or Hardin would be inclined to put the work in on that at this point.