- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
It says any State courthouse or the State Law Library in St. Paul, so I think you should be alright. Case number A23-1337. Spelled Rekieta, not rekeita.
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
- Jun 9, 2021
I called the library and they said I do not need any sort of identifying documents and I should be able to print them out via the terminal at any court house or at the library itself. So tomorrow morning I'll be getting those documents, scanning them and uploading them to this thread for everyone's viewing pleasure.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2021
I have the physical documents in my hands now it's just a matter of scanning these pages now. Unfortunately I was unable to get an electronic copy so it'll take a little bit longer than I anticipated.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2021
Sorry for triple posting but the law library was so gracious to have the documents scanned and sent to me. I didn't expect them to do that. They were really nice and helpful.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
Thank you for your service, fellow Kiwi.
There are better legal minds who can dissect this better than I, but it's telling that the section "Applying Colorado law advances Minnesota's interest." is longer than any other section.
What/who the hell are they quoting there?
Edit: spelling
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Their own district court motion.
Anyway, anyone else get the feeling that Nick's lawyer is constantly jerking off to his verbose form of writing? Yeah, man, I get it, you know many words, but for fuck's sake, spell out your points simply. Some times it looks that you are arguing for the opposite points then you are because your wording is so fucking unclear. Like this:
What he wants to say here is that because old Washington Anti-Slapp and the Minnesota Anti-Slapp were identical and for identical reason were found unconstitutional, and because the new Washington Anti-Slapp and Colorado Anti-Slapp are both identical, that means that applying the Colorado Anti-Slapp would not run in the same constitutional problems as the old Minnesota Anti-Slapp.
Can anyone read this paragraph in the screenshot, and not think that he is arguing instead that "all anti-SLAPP laws [...]violated the Minnesota Constitution"?
SpergioLeonne
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2022
I dislike that he writes in the imperative voice when the declarative would be more appropriate.
Starting sentences with the command “remember,” complete divorced from the inquisitive voice, is something that usually only happens when people are being overbearing.
“Bear in mind” in its cultural context is still imperative, but FEELS more like a request. Anyways, the shit feels hostile.
Edit: going a little further, I don’t like that he uses the imperative voice as mentioned above to like, force the acceptance of his assertion that both anti slapp laws he’s referencing at this point are “substantively identical.”
Since he used an UN-qualified case of “identical” immediately prior, it jumps out that his use of “substantive” is a hedge, and he’s essentially commanding the court to not question his hedge and take his word for it.
He’s being verbose and intentionally inefficient at the same time. It just makes me want to stop what I’m doing and figure out what he means by “substantially identical.”
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
My thoughts on the brief in the most tldr way possible. This feels like a otherwise well thought-out argument that is at all times disturbed by the fact that a voice in Nick’s lawyer’s head keeps sabotaging his work. You know those movies or games where you can easily understand that the writing staff worked in two different rooms, and neither got access to what the other was doing, nor the script, and all they get is a tiny note telling them more or less the end point of the scene? This is exactly like that. Compare, for example, his citation style at the start and in the middle. Completely different. His tone and mannerism also seem to change; the further you get, the more it seems like he just wants to show you how smart he is.
Honestly, after looking back at his district work, I feel like he’s intentionally sabotaging everything for more money. He keeps either choosing the least likely to succeed arguments, or using difficult to understand writing styles and comparisons.
Honestly, after looking back at his district work, I feel like he’s intentionally sabotaging everything for more money. He keeps either choosing the least likely to succeed arguments, or using difficult to understand writing styles and comparisons.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
Samuel Hyde can't keep getting away with all those papers!
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Nick Rekieta's take on choice-of-law analysis:
"'Choice of law' is where you choose to be and domicile and live."
"'Choice of law' is where you choose to be and domicile and live."
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
The part preceding this is goodish, which is notable precisely because the "good" part essentially just the argument his lawyer made. That says something about him, I'd say, if he just copied it that is.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
Given how hostile Minnesota is to Nick's position in this suit, I do not blame Randazza for trying to do a weird arugment like this, but it seems questionable for Nick to accept that he should appeal on this issue. Nick's accusations of forum shopping are pretty ridiculous, though. If anyone is trying to forum shop, it's him with his whole "Texas LLC" scheme and the idea of applying Colorado law.
Also, Nick's whole thing of "why are they suing my law firm?" Is just ridiculous. At the start of each video, you advertise your law firm. You use the same name for the channel, the same logo, and the same general brand identity. At this point, I would assume you also comingle all the finances. The company probably doesn't actually exist. I would assume "Rekieta Media LLC" is in the same position.
Also, Nick's whole thing of "why are they suing my law firm?" Is just ridiculous. At the start of each video, you advertise your law firm. You use the same name for the channel, the same logo, and the same general brand identity. At this point, I would assume you also comingle all the finances. The company probably doesn't actually exist. I would assume "Rekieta Media LLC" is in the same position.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
Just pray that Nick doesn't spend a fortune on a stupid disagreement.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Right, these shows consist of reading out what his lawyer wrote, saying how great the argument is and how Nick agrees fully, and then adding absolutely moronic points that make no sense and personal anecdotes about how Nick thinks Monty's lawyer is a horrible person.
I dont know why Nick thinks anyone would want to watch it.
What makes this really confusing is that the district judge has already rejected summary judgment, the appeals court's reasoning for accepting jurisdiction over the appeal appears to suggest that they wouldn't have jurisdiction over an appeal of the district judge rejecting the motion to dismiss under Colorado law, and then their brief argues that its basically summary judgment.
What's the point?
I'm confident that Rekieta and Beard have this situation under control.
You're 9 or 10 months too late.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Which is funny, because Nick's lawyer really is a horrible person.
- Joined
- May 4, 2022
I mean, they can both be right. Hell, they're all lawyers, so the question isn't if they're horrible, it's which is the most horrible.
Every lawyer involved with this, from the tangential Ty Beard (incompetent cringe-beast), through the active (corrupt bloviators), down to the client (sex-toy shilling drunken pervert) is utterly horrible. If it was a movie, you wouldn't believe it. Literally the only one who I don't think is absolutely horrible is the strip-mall lawyer from Vic's case, and I believe that's only because I don't know enough about him.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2015
This whole thing is turning into a Coen brothers movie.
Hard to see Frances McDormand as Our Wife, but she's a hell of an actress and could probably pull it off.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2016
Man, that Monty guy has got to be seething over all the great content and huge fan financial support Rekieta is getting for this lawsuit.
What’s defamation per se anyway? That sounds like some dumb Latin shit and who even knows what any of that means?
Everything is going great and we’re gonna ride this content and superchat train all the way to the Supreme Court, baby!
What’s defamation per se anyway? That sounds like some dumb Latin shit and who even knows what any of that means?
Everything is going great and we’re gonna ride this content and superchat train all the way to the Supreme Court, baby!
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
It's when a chick named "Defa" forms a nation (of Persia) in EU4. Many such cases, but no one likes her, so that's why it's a tort. A tort, by the way, is when the judges get to eat cake, the word comes from the Lithuanian word "tortas", which as we all know is pretty much just latin anyway