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.
I'm not doing your homework on some random skitzo theory. You said that he is a convicted pedophile, nobody has ever seen these documents. Just show him on a sex offender list. Should be easy to do.
Edit: Make sure to hit up Randaza with all your proof that Monty is a pedo. I'd love to see it in court documents.
Randazza has already gone through all of the babble online and put all of this shit in his various filings for the low low price of $1,000/hour.

It appears this specific claim was entered as Exhibit 8 of the motion to dismiss last year which eventually went to the court of appeals (first image excerpt) and Exhibit 11 of the recent motion using Minnesota's new anti-SLAPP which is barred by the clear language in the savings clause (second image).

1751727512432.webp

1751734102831.webp
 
It appears this specific claim was entered as Exhibit 8 of the motion to dismiss last year which eventually went to the court of appeals (first image excerpt) and Exhibit 11 of the recent motion using Minnesota's new anti-SLAPP which is barred by the clear language in the savings clause (second image).
The JonBenet Ramsay shit is also part of Exhibit 5. I just addressed Holmseth's lunacy in the main Rekieta thread.

That Randazza is including any of this crap in his filings is insane. I think Hardin is right that it's just a shotgun attempt to smear Monty.
 
That Randazza is including any of this crap in his filings is insane. I think Hardin is right that it's just a shotgun attempt to smear Monty.
It makes a certain amount of sense for him to include it in order to lay a foundation that Montagraph already has a reputation online for committing horrific acts, therefore Nick couldn't have damaged it further by calling him a pedophile.

However, I think the key difference is that anything Nick said would (at the time, anyway) have had far more credibility and have been shared to a much broader audience than some weirdo JBR conspiracy theorist nobody's really heard of.
 
I seriously hate how the defense amounts to "many people have baselessly claimed this person is a pedophile, and while my client wasn't aware of any of these other baseless allegations until years into our ongoing litigation, it should still make it okay for us to also baselessly claim he's a pedophile too now!"

So, if enough of us all make the same baseless claim, then the legitimate basis for making that claim becomes "other people made the baseless claim, so I uncritically repeated it!" Just keep cycling a bunch of baseless allegations until the statute of limitations on the original baseless allegation has passed, and now we can all repeat it forever with impunity.

Why even have laws if you can break them by virtue of others also ostensibly breaking them?
 
I seriously hate how the defense amounts to "many people have baselessly claimed this person is a pedophile, and while my client wasn't aware of any of these other baseless allegations until years into our ongoing litigation, it should still make it okay for us to also baselessly claim he's a pedophile too now!"
Yeah that's the other thing I think it's pretty clear that he wasn't aware of any of this "deep cut" lore/accusations about Monty. He had some very superficial second-hand knowledge about him from talking to Metokur once or twice and the alcohol did the rest, it had nothing to do with some ultra obscure anti-Monty video with 50 views or whatever (that's literally the average channel viewership of the "diligent escape" channel Randazza is referencing).
 
I seriously hate how the defense amounts to "many people have baselessly claimed this person is a pedophile, and while my client wasn't aware of any of these other baseless allegations until years into our ongoing litigation, it should still make it okay for us to also baselessly claim he's a pedophile too now!"

So, if enough of us all make the same baseless claim, then the legitimate basis for making that claim becomes "other people made the baseless claim, so I uncritically repeated it!" Just keep cycling a bunch of baseless allegations until the statute of limitations on the original baseless allegation has passed, and now we can all repeat it forever with impunity.

Why even have laws if you can break them by virtue of others also ostensibly breaking them?
This is actually a real defense. If other people have (before you) destroyed someone's reputation, then your own contribution to the matter becomes minimal if any. Minnesota actually has some interesting semi-new cases about this

"Here the jury awarded appellant special damages in the aggregate amount of $90,000 for past and future wage loss. But the district court concluded that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that respondent's statement was the legal cause of any actual and special pecuniary loss. Even after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant, we agree with the district court. [...] There is no evidence that respondent originated the name or participated in its dissemination so as to justify imposing liability on him for any subsequent publication by others. In fact, the record shows that at the time of the incident, appellant was commonly known in the Moose Lake community by this derogatory nickname." - LONGBEHN v. SCHOENROCK A06-1021, 2007 (more snippets of the case can be found here). This technically isn't the thing that makes or breaks this case because there were a few factors that made that case that are different here, but the general idea stands.

See also, "One leading commentator has explained that evidence of a plaintiff's pre-existing reputation is highly probative in a defamation case [...] Minnesota caselaw is consistent with this view: The bad character of a plaintiff in a libel action may be shown in mitigation of damages by presenting evidence of the plaintiff's general reputation in that respect in the community in which he lives. Thus, Schoenrock's evidence concerning Longbehn's reputation is relevant to the jury's consideration of Longbehn's request for general damages." - LONGBEHN v. SCHOENROCK A09-2141, 2010.
Yeah that's the other thing I think it's pretty clear that he wasn't aware of any of this "deep cut" lore/accusations about Monty. He had some very superficial second-hand knowledge about him from talking to Metokur once or twice and the alcohol did the rest, it had nothing to do with some ultra obscure anti-Monty video with 50 views or whatever (that's literally the average channel viewership of the "diligent escape" channel Randazza is referencing).
This is one of the arguments against mitigation of damages, actually.
 
Damn. I guess I can't hate the player in this case. Well, I have some reputations to go legally destroy then, clearly /sneed

Thanks, Minnesota!
 
This is one of the arguments against mitigation of damages, actually.
It's less than an excellent argument if he's going for a "libel-proof plaintiff" argument that a tiny smattering of schizos have made up shit about him for years. If so, every celebrity would be libel-proof because they all have some tiny smattering of psychos making shit up about them, thinking they're in relationships with them, etc.
 
It's less than an excellent argument if he's going for a "libel-proof plaintiff" argument that a tiny smattering of schizos have made up shit about him for years.
Libel proof argument is nonsense for Nick to make, and that's exactly why its so attractive for him. Mitigation of damages, however, is one of the only few options he has unless he is willing to copy paste my fringe theories on defamation and try them out.
 
Libel proof argument is nonsense for Nick to make, and that's exactly why its so attractive for him. Mitigation of damages, however, is one of the only few options he has unless he is willing to copy paste my fringe theories on defamation and try them out.
Even that's not particularly strong. I suppose it's the best they can do, but picking obvious schizo weirdoes as the factual basis for it weakens and not strengthens the case. It's literally one guy who thinks he murdered JBR, and that guy puts Francis E. Dec to shame for pure unintelligible babble.
 
I'd say Nick's strategy worked, but he still ended up losing more money than Montagraph and could have done it way way cheaper. At any rate, congratulations to Nick are in order.
As I stated in the other thread in a long drawn out matter, is it a win if you achieve nothing you set out to achieve?

Monty won more than Nick did, even if Monty didn’t make Nick kiss his ass in court. It’s arguable that more of Nick’s (former) audience has a higher opinion of Monty than when this started.
 
Last edited:
It’s arguable that more of Nick’s (former) audience has a higher opinion of Monty than when this started.
Yeah, this whole situation sucks for Monty, but I can say that my personal opinion of him flipped from "I dunno, probably some pedo-adjacent weirdo" to "Unjustly persecuted harmless weirdo" because of this case. Whatever damage Nick did is probably mostly undone, even if Monty won't be compensated for past harms.
 
Back