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

[Mike Stoklasas Spock Ears]

View attachment 7494165
Nick citing to a KF post for an archive after all the bitching about us

Am I having a stroke or is Nick referring to himself in the first person? Did he write this entire thing and not even bother to hide the fact that he did?

 

[John Andrews Stan]

View attachment 7494165
Nick citing to a KF post for an archive after all the bitching about us

Also citing @elb. What a cuck bitch!

 

[Watching Rekieta]

Uploaded, since you did notI 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.

IANAL but how does Nick expect a 554.07 dismissal when the suit was started before 5/25/24 and the law seems to say "no?"

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.

 

[SMOCAINE 4]

Maybe I am missing somethin here, but Randazza doesn’t address why the new statue would be retroactively applicable to this claim, where the filing of the suit and conduct giving rise to the suit occurred prior to the effective date of the new anti-SLAPP law. This asserts that the new law does apply, but, does not address why it should apply. I see nothing about retroactivity in the statute, and I am not a MN lawyer, but retroactivity is generally disfavored in the American legal system. Can anyone comment?

 

[Sneed Force One]

Pages 4-8 of this motion seems to defeat their own argument.
Nick/Randazza demonstrates many instances of public conversation about Steve Quest, with defendants admitting their is positive discussion about him, therefore Nick's defamation can damage his reputation.

 

[Folgers Can]

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.

Maybe I am missing somethin here, but Randazza doesn’t address why the new statue would be retroactively applicable to this claim, where the filing of the suit and conduct giving rise to the suit occurred prior to the effective date of the new anti-SLAPP law. This asserts that the new law does apply, but, does not address why it should apply.

He does address retroactivity, barely, in a single footnote:



So what seemed like a common professional courtesy to allow incoming counsel to get up to speed was actually just a sneaky trap to try giving the statute retroactive effect? It seems unlikely that there was ever a meeting of the minds about a stipulation on procedural deadlines somehow intending to alter the applicable substantive law too, but we'll see if the new judge falls for it.

 

[Captain Manning]

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.

My understanding is that the one they recently passed is expressly NOT retroactive. I read the statute, and it certainly seems that way. If Wentzel agrees, this might be swatted down pretty quickly.

But I'll leave you and others to analyze whether Randazza 's argument has any legs.

BTW, I hope you don't mind me uploading just the actual filing in my post, but I didn't want that (the single most important thing) to get lost in a sea of attachments like in your post. I wasn't quite sure how to properly parse that many exhibits, and figured you'd be the best to figure it out.

Like, holy shit, Marc... couldn't you have combined all the exhibits together in a single PDF?

I dunno, Randazza, you think repeating the same sentence 3 times is enough to convince the judge?

I noticed a lot of theatrical flourishes like that in the thing.

I also like the parts where he emphasizes how drunk Rekieta was on his streams.

I also like how they barely address the main problem here: That Nick says Monty "sucks little boy cock." Randazza keeps arguing as if Nick "only" just called him a pedo.

 

[Sneed Force One]

What a silly statement to make when Nick got so high, drunk and assmad that his appeal failed he got his kids taken away.

"Mr. Randazza, please clarify further to the court the whiskey I was drinking, it was expensive. They need to know."

Judge will now be required to google Goatse to verify the validity of this statement.

This made me laugh out loud. I know Randazza is his attorney and he has to make this argument.
But calling Quest a "child molesting faggot" and saying "sue me faggot", then acting surprised when he sues

"I didn't sue my client for calling me a faggot, so Quest is just a big crybaby about being called a "boycock-sucking pedophile", your honor"

 

[East_Clintwood]

Am I having a stroke or is Nick referring to himself in the first person? Did he write this entire thing and not even bother to hide the fact that he did?

That part is from one of the exhibits not the main pleading, it is from a declaration by Nick. Speaking of:

Good job being a snarky passive aggressive faggot in your statement Nick, I'm sure the court will love your comedy stylings just as much as your dying Youtube audience does.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Judge Fischer

Recused herself months ago.

 

[SMOCAINE 4]

He does address retroactivity, barely, in a single footnote:

View attachment 7494180

So what seemed like a common professional courtesy to allow incoming counsel to get up to speed was actually just a sneaky trap to try giving the statute retroactive effect? It seems unlikely that there was ever a meeting of the minds about a stipulation on procedural deadlines somehow intending to alter the applicable substantive law too, but we'll see if the new judge falls for it.

They did agree to extending the 60-day deadline for the 554.09 motion in the extension request, so, I’m not inclined to think it was some “gotcha” that would open the door for a new form of relief.

Edit: is this just another way to drag the case out infinitely via a second appeal?

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Maybe I am missing somethin here, but Randazza doesn’t address why the new statue would be retroactively applicable to this claim, where the filing of the suit and conduct giving rise to the suit occurred prior to the effective date of the new anti-SLAPP law. This asserts that the new law does apply, but, does not address why it should apply. I see nothing about retroactivity in the statute, and I am not a MN lawyer, but retroactivity is generally disfavored in the American legal system. Can anyone comment?

So what seemed like a common professional courtesy to allow incoming counsel to get up to speed was actually just a sneaky trap to try giving the statute retroactive effect? It seems unlikely that there was ever a meeting of the minds about a stipulation on procedural deadlines somehow intending to alter the applicable substantive law too, but we'll see if the new judge falls for it.

They did agree to extending the 60-day deadline for the 554.09 motion in the extension request, so, I’m not inclined to think it was some “gotcha” that would open the door for a new form of relief.

It would be odd for the judge to agree that an agreement about deadlines could possibly be interpreted as voiding the explicit savings clause in the statute.

 

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

This is so bad. This is like a Greer filing.

This is better than a Greer filing because it costs Nick a lot of money

 

[Folgers Can]

They did agree to extending the 60-day deadline for the 554.09 motion in the extension request, so, I’m not inclined to think it was some “gotcha” that would open the door for a new form of relief.

It's the one and only time his filing's hundreds of pages even skimmed the surface of a retroactivity argument, so any potential for opening that door had to have been on his mind when he slipped that Paragraph 6 into a proposed draft that he hoped Hardin would perfunctorily rubber-stamp after a quick conversation about what seemed like a simple housekeeping matter. That's just looking at it from his (and his client's) perspective and is not to suggest that Hardin glossed over it, however, because even the extension stipulation only incorporates by reference the statute authorizing the expedited motion, which itself limits its scope to actions to which the new legislation as a whole would apply, such that there would be no change to the May 25, 2024 effective date in the savings clause posted here earlier:




It could well be that Hardin didn't bother quibbling about Paragraph 6 because he never dreamed that they would be brazen enough to file such a motion anyway when the savings clause itself was so clearly unaffected. It's even getting hard to believe that Randazza's heart is really in this and this gambit could be entirely at his retarded client's urging, to which his usual mercenary response would be "so long as your Celeste's check clears."

 

[AnOminous]

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.

Now this strikes me as an almost deliberately ridiculous argument:

So extending pending deadlines somehow retroactively reached back in time and undoes not just an already decided motion, but a lost appeal about the same motion and magically erases the statute's explicit language making the law non-retroactive.

 

[thebigdream]

"I didn't sue my client for calling me a faggot, so Quest is just a big crybaby about being called a "boycock-sucking pedophile", your honor"

Imagine admitting to scolding your now-client . Like I know the intent is to show that defamatory matters can be dealt with outside the court, but to me it only establishes that Nick is the type of person who is so irresponsible that they need scolding (from a fellow-professional, no less!), which only reinforces Montagraph's negative characterisation of him. Talk about posting your L's on the internet...

 

[DragoonSierra]

Nick getting his money's worth I guess

 

[AnOminous]

Am I having a stroke or is Nick referring to himself in the first person? Did he write this entire thing and not even bother to hide the fact that he did?

That's from an affidavit.

It seems unlikely that there was ever a meeting of the minds about a stipulation on procedural deadlines somehow intending to alter the applicable substantive law too, but we'll see if the new judge falls for it.

Which new judge? It's still Judge SJW. Judge Pussy Liquor was the only previous judge and recused before anything substantive happened.

Edit: is this just another way to drag the case out infinitely via a second appeal?

Randazza actually gloats about that in his motion. He's already counting the Benjamins.

 

[Captain Manning]

"I didn't sue my client for calling me a faggot, so Quest is just a big crybaby about being called a "boycock-sucking pedophile", your honor"

Nick never called Randazza a faggot. He called Randazza's law partner, Jay Wolman, a faggot, during the Vic case, back in 2019, and Randazza called Nick out on it.

That later got smoothed over, only for Nick to start bitching about Wolman yet again when Wolman sued James O'Keefe began to represent Project Veritas in a lawsuit against James O'Keefe (corrected to be more accurate). He even pretended he was so indignant over that, that he was considering dropping Randazza in this case.

Funny side-issue: Wolman later got into a mini spat with Null:


(Previously archived by Null elsewhere).

 

[Kosher Dill]

Is it just me or is this all really sloppy for a billion-dollar lawyer?


Look how the font changes size like they just copy-pasted stuff in from elsewhere.



Well which is it, does he have three aliases or four?


No! He does not practice law, because he can't practice law! Wouldn't it be illegal to state this anywhere other than in a court filing?




Which is it, was he too drunk to take seriously or is he a concerned citizen opining on serious community matters? This is insulting.

He never misses an opportunity to steal a coom.