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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
John Andrews Stan said:
How relevant to the Quest case is the fact that Nick can’t seem to stop calling people pedophiles despite this ongoing case?
Click to expand...
That really depends, and is not an easy answer. Nick could argue that this shows that he is not to be trusted and in the alternative that his words carry no specific malice. On the other hand, this does work to show Nick's state of mind, which might be useful to Montagraph. Likewise, Nick openly saying that he is friends with pedophiles could have similar impact (see OP)
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: often puzzled, FamicomGorby, DSP's Tax Lawyer and 3 others
Didn't see this posted:
Screenshot 2025-06-04 154735.webp
Screenshot 2025-06-04 154819.webp
 

Attachments

  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Himedall All-seeing Waifu, often puzzled, Third World Aristocrat and 22 others
Useful_Mistake said:
Nick could argue that this shows that he is not to be trusted and in the alternative that his words carry no specific malice.
Click to expand...
Would it not be germane that these allegations are all post-Monty? Unless I missed it (entirely possible), I don’t think Nick was in the habit of defaming all and sundry as pedophiles until relatively recently.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Accidental Protege, Botchy Galoop, Captain Manning and 1 other person
I found myself watching somebody reporting on some weird little child custody case in California/Nevada. when Randazza's name popped up.

Case went like this: divorced couple. Mom was driving her car in Reno with the kids in the back. Gets pulled over for DUI. Knows she cant fight the case, so she signs over custody of the kids to the father, and they live with him for the next year or two in Vegas. Mom buys an apartment in Nevada so she can see the kids regularly.

Mom gets through the DUI case without anyone raising child custody issues, so after a year or so, she buys an apartment in California, snatches up the kids, files for custody in California and a corrupt judge awards her custody. (Mom's parents worked for Apple since the early days so they have a shedload of money. Father is ex-military and representing himself pro se)

The case SHOULD have been heard in Nevada, because that's where the children lived. They were attempting to have the judge arrested because she was obviously bent as a nine bob note. And at some point, Mom wheels out little Marco Randazza, in an attempt to get the case thrown out on a SLAPP basis.

It didn't work, fortunately. But I just thought it was interesting that another shower of rotters rolled out Randazza in an attempt to bypass the legal process.

 
  • Informative
  • Horrifying
  • Like
Reactions: repentance, St. Alia of the Knife, Lewisite and 11 others
Lian Xing said:
Nicker is on the court schedule for 6/18 at 8:45 AM local consistent with the order above.
Click to expand...
Is this open to the public or on Zoom? Sometimes things like this aren't. I doubt the actual content would be interesting, but if Nick or Steve are going to be there it might be interesting to see what their demeanor is. Will Nick be impotently seething? (Partly rhetorical since he spends every waking moment that he isn't unconscious on nitrous impotently seething.)
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: koos koets, John Andrews Stan, UncleTusky and 2 others
AnOminous said:
Is this open to the public or on Zoom? Sometimes things like this aren't. I doubt the actual content would be interesting, but if Nick or Steve are going to be there it might be interesting to see what their demeanor is. Will Nick be impotently seething? (Partly rhetorical since he spends every waking moment that he isn't unconscious on nitrous impotently seething.)
Click to expand...
It's only a scheduling conference and it appears to be happening via conference call. My understanding is that its to set new dates for the trial to give Hardin time to get up to speed on everything. So there isn't gonna be anything exciting and it more than likely won't be open to the public since it's just gonna be comparing dates and figuring out what's gonna work best for all parties.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: often puzzled, Provably Wrong and koos koets
ButWhyTho said:
It's only a scheduling conference and it appears to be happening via conference call. My understanding is that its to set new dates for the trial to give Hardin time to get up to speed on everything. So there isn't gonna be anything exciting and it more than likely won't be open to the public since it's just gonna be comparing dates and figuring out what's gonna work best for all parties.
Click to expand...
I forgot I'd seen UM's post. It only lists attorneys and parties as who should call in. So no video and I'm not sure it isn't open to the public but it looks like it probably is[n't].
 
Last edited:
Nova902 said:
Looking at the hundreds ( 200-300 )of pages Nick submitted to the court yesterday. Nick wants the court to find Nick not guilty because of Monty's Twitter/X posts.
Click to expand...
Damn, that's a lot of shit they dropped.

Main filing attached.

TL;DR, Randazza is going for anti-SLAPP again.

Also, Exhibit 25 is insane. It's that "Welcome to Wonderland" page with the conspiracy nut that actually thinks Monty killed somebody in his film.

Okay. Lol.

EDIT: I don't know if @Useful_Mistake wants all of the exhibits up here, but there's quite a lot. I'll let them decide. For now I just uploaded the main filing.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Himedall All-seeing Waifu, often puzzled, Third World Aristocrat and 10 others
Nova902 said:
Looking at the hundreds ( 200-300 )of pages Nick submitted to the court yesterday. Nick wants the court to find Nick not guilty because of Monty's Twitter/X posts.
Click to expand...
Uploaded, since you did not
Screenshot 2025-06-12 233650.webp
Screenshot 2025-06-12 233707.webp

Captain Manning said:
TL;DR, Randazza is going for anti-SLAPP again.
Click to expand...
I see his argument is based on the recently enacted new Anti-Slapp law in Minnesota, but one - it was past over a year ago, and two - I don't believe it gets him a second bite at the apple.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Winner
  • Lunacy
Reactions: repentance, Birdbonks, byuuWasTaken and 23 others
This is the reputation that he had before Rekieta spoke about him.
This is the reputation he had before Rekieta spoke about him.
THIS IS THE REPUTATION HE HAD BEFORE REKIETA SPOKE ABOUT HIM.
Click to expand...
I dunno, Randazza, you think repeating the same sentence 3 times is enough to convince the judge?

I also like the parts where he emphasizes how drunk Rekieta was on his streams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: byuuWasTaken, St. Alia of the Knife, and six goriilion others and 5 others
This motion so far reads like a goddamn fever dream.
How on earth in good faith, can Nick Rekieta and Randazza argue that the character name of "rapist" who performed the act of "rape" in a fictional film, equate to Steve Quest himself, the actor, outside of the fictional film, in the real world, being a pedophile?
That's like me arguing that fucking Leonardo DiCaprio is a real life violent murderer because he killed his fictional wife in Shutter Island.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SenseDemons, koos koets, Associate Rick and 6 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back