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

[mindlessobserver]

Larry Flynt's lawyer said something very similar.

"Rich and always in trouble."

Yeah but I wonder how Rich rackets is at this point. All that Johnny Depp and Rittenhouse money has probably gone all up his nose and down his throat.

 

[waffle]

Yeah, but Saul does unethical/illegal things to help his clients and .makes money because he markets himself to criminals/also is one. Randaza does unethical stuff that is generally detrimental to his clients just to line his pockets. Randaza is way bigger shyster than Saul Goodman ever was.

 

[UncleTusky]

Yeah, but Saul does unethical/illegal things to help his clients and .makes money because he markets himself to criminals/also is one. Randaza does unethical stuff that is generally detrimental to his clients just to line his pockets. Randaza is way bigger shyster than Saul Goodman ever was.

And Saul only gave up on going legit after years of trying - when "Better Call Saul" opens he is barely solvent and basing his 'office' out of a backroom in a salon because he's more interested in living up to his brother's high standards than taking the easy route and becoming an ambulance chaser. By contrast Randazza started working for that porn studio shortly after he quit teaching + formed his own practice.

He didn't sue O'Keefe, he just represented Veritas.

That's what I mean. He is the attorney for Veritas against O'Keefe.

Nick wasn't happy with that.

For what it is worth, he withdrew about a half-year ago citing nonpayment and attempted chargebacks from Veritas.

ETA: Link to memorandum to withdraw alleging breaches of Sections 3 and 6 the representation agreement, and link to representation agreement specifying that Sections 3 and 6 deal with payments and chargebacks. The representation agreement is so generic that much if not all was probably copy pasted to Nick's retainer, possibly with a clause about pro hac vice since Randazza Legal Group does not appear to have attorneys licensed in Minnesota.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Rekieta once stated that he does not believe in having a rigid legal strategy. In his view, the optimal way to practice law involves invoking every possible argument or defense that may favor the client.

This "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach has become quite apparent both in his criminal matters and now in his civil case.

One could argue that having a client with deep pockets, combined with this throw-everything approach, is a financial dream come true for any attorney.

Add to this that he thinks PR on socila media (a.k.a. screaming at the internet) is a valuable part of legal strategy too.

Look how many hearts and minds he has won even if he loses the case!

 

[AnOminous]

For what it is worth, he withdrew about a half-year ago citing nonpayment and attempted chargebacks from Veritas.

Tbh I have little sympathy, but that's why you have those clauses in a retainer agreement. It's one of those "you knew I was a snake, bitch" kind of things.

Randaza does unethical stuff that is generally detrimental to his clients just to line his pockets. Randaza is way bigger shyster than Saul Goodman ever was.

I wouldn't necessarily say that, other than the particularly glaring example that led to discipline because of an insanely bad conflict of interest he acted on. He's generally done a good job for clients including losers like that junkie Brian Zaiger, who probably stiffed him. And the first legal work Saul Goodman does in the series involves him strongly suggesting a prison shanking for Badger to keep him from squealing.

He doesn't actually do it, but from how quickly he goes to that (and Badger was his client), he's probably had it done before.

 

[Strix454]

Reading through the material, I really have to wonder if Randazza actually wrote much of it. I wonder if Nick made significant contributions to it on his own. There are lines in there that are just strange and don't seem consistent with the previous tone of the filings in the case. Two examples:

"that sloppy pleading makes this case DOA, but Rekieta will indulge the theory for the sake of a complete anti-slapp record,"

"Freedom to insult under the first amendemnt means that Hustler magazine can publish a fake ad that states that Rev. Jerry Falwell's loss of virginity occured.....What could be more offensive that that? If this is protected speech, what class of nobility does Plaintiff belong to that he is above that kind of insult"

They both sound like angry Nick more than they sound like Randazza. The illogic displayed throughout seems more like what was filed in Nick's criminal case.

The arguments are the emphasis in it are also completely off (IMO).

They needed a really good and careful argument supported by law as to how they can bring an anti-SLAPP motion under the new Minnesota law. But its not really there and not well argued. They also didn't really address much of the stuff that the judge articulated previously. Such as there being issues in the case that can only be addressed by a jury (i.e. jury questions).

Nor does it argue well for an anti-SLAPP result. Whoever wrote it had at best a superficial understanding of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell and honestly Nick's superficial understanding as he has expressed it in the past.

Instead of presenting good arguments, they submitted a whole bunch of not useful information about Motagraph and Nick's disputes with Montagraph over time. Almost all of it is irrelevant. I think almost all of this has been in previous material in the case and could have referenced rather than writing it out like this again.

Its also IMO not useful to admit that Nick was distracted by a criminal case for the past year and then blame the other side for a lack of progress in the case.

Doing a motion attempting to end the case at this point would probably have been the right thing to do. But going to the well one more time on anti-slapp is just absurd. Putting anything else they say into an anti-slapp container is going to kill any consideration of it.

Randazza either gave up and is going through the motions,.....or he is listening to Nick and giving Nick what he wants.

 

[AnOminous]

They needed a really good and careful argument supported by law as to how they can bring an anti-SLAPP motion under the new Minnesota law. But its not really there and not well argued.

The entirety of the retroactivity argument is buried in a footnote. Obviously even Randazza doesn't think much about it, although he is very enthused about the ability to file an immediate interlocutory appeal to the inevitable denial of the motion.

Nor does it argue well for an anti-SLAPP result. Whoever wrote it had at best a superficial understanding of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell and honestly Nick's superficial understanding as he has expressed it in the past.

Nick also fails to grasp the nuances of the specifics of that case. While you might think it is the case, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with libel. Flynt won the libel case. The jury threw it out. The jury did find Hustler liable under intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The IIED tort was what was before the Supreme Court. It was not about libel, since the jury had ruled against that.

Hustler won on the IIED claim.

While this case does apply (and has been applied) to defamation cases, it wasn't strictly speaking about defamation.

Randazza either gave up and is going through the motions,.....or he is listening to Nick and giving Nick what he wants.

Or he's milking this worthless faggot for all he's worth, and if so, I applaud his cojones for filing this bullshit.

 

[sarna]

Or he's milking this worthless faggot for all he's worth, and if so, I applaud his cojones for filing this bullshit.

"If God did not want them to be sheared, He would not have made them sheep."

 

[Pelican Bones]

Randazza either gave up and is going through the motions,.....or he is listening to Nick and giving Nick what he wants.

Tbf to Randazza his retarded client isn't giving him much to work with. A lot of this comes off as "pounding the podium", as it were.

 

[AnOminous]

Tbf to Randazza his retarded client isn't giving him much to work with. A lot of this comes off as "pounding the podium", as it were.

It's obvious it's Nick who's obsessed with this SLAPP bullshit because it isn't enough for him to win this case (and he might not even do that). He must also punish Steve Quest. Instead, the dumb fuck is punishing only himself.

 

[Napoleon III]

It's obvious it's Nick who's obsessed with this SLAPP bullshit because it isn't enough for him to win this case (and he might not even do that). He must also punish Steve Quest. Instead, the dumb fuck is punishing only himself.

I think SLAPP is his only semi-reasonable method of victory.

What else could Nick/Randazza do that has a reasonable chance of winning them this case.

The smart thing to do from the beginning has been to settle this case and the longer it goes on the more Rekieta has to pay to settle it.

 

[AnOminous]

What else could Nick/Randazza do that has a reasonable chance of winning them this case.

A simple motion to dismiss and walking away with only the hurt he's already taken, instead of a bunch more when he loses the SLAPP too. If that's even available.

 

[ButWhyTho]

From what I remember he already tried the SLAPP route by claiming that the CO laws should apply to the MN case but got denied. That was his only chance at it if I remember because the Minnesota one doesn't apply to this case.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

From what I remember he already tried the SLAPP route by claiming that the CO laws should apply to the MN case but got denied. That was his only chance at it if I remember because the Minnesota one doesn't apply to this case.

Minnesota, IIRC, did not have a SLAPP statute when Monty filed this case, which is why Nick tried to the hail mary of getting the CO SLAPP applied. Since this case was filed MN has passed a SLAPP statute so he's trying to apply it to this case retroactively.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Minnesota, IIRC, did not have a SLAPP statute when Monty filed this case, which is why Nick tried to the hail mary of getting the CO SLAPP applied.

It technically did have one, but it was ruled unconstitutional. That doesn't remove it from the books, just stops it from applying.

 

[Folgers Can]

Instead, the dumb fuck is punishing only himself.

So it would seem, as the latest motion's total disregard of the savings clause's effective date was so patently frivolous that Hardin is now seeking have the defense pay the plaintiff's attorney fees for responding to it:

Spoiler: Mucho pages

Hilariously, Nick is also getting his money's worth with Randazza's no-call no-show at the remote scheduling conference today, which had to be rescheduled:

 

[Third World Aristocrat]

ouch!

 

[PyrrhicRustle]

Hilariously, Nick is also getting his money's worth with Randazza's no-call no-show at the remote scheduling conference today, which had to be rescheduled:

Surely there would eventually be sanctions if the defense refuses to appear to handle matters the defense itself insists on.

 

[AnOminous]

ouch!
View attachment 7524796

It's almost like his lazy faggotry is actually catching up to him and being cited in court filings.

Suck a dick you fucking homo!

Hilariously, Nick is also getting his money's worth with Randazza's no-call no-show at the remote scheduling conference today, which had to be rescheduled:

Hardin is a fuckin monster kaiju breathing fire and fuckin zilla stomping buildings in this sheeeeeit.

And actually after reading the actual filing, Hardin is even more of a monster. What the fuck was Randazza thinking, or drinking, before filing this absolute bullshit on behalf of a drunken moron who called his law partner a faggot?

 

[DavidS877]

I'm starting to get the feeling that Mr. Hardin simply takes cases that he thinks will be funny.