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.
Screenshot_20230121-004629_Firefox.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: BBChannel, Richard Freeman, Botchy Galoop and 11 others
Matt Kezhaya
1674255382143.png
(Twitter | Archive)

From an archive of Crown Law's website as saved by the Wayback Machine, the blurb for Crown Law and Matt Kezhaya:

1674250787036.png
(Wayback Machine)

1674252827925.png
(Wayback Machine - click "Matt")

Matt Kezhaya and the Satanic Temple

Matt Kezhaya has represented the Satanic Temple and served or serves as general counsel for the organization.

The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Hellerstedt
District Court, S.D. Texas (Docket on CourtListener)

1674256696281.png
1674254056425.png1674254071690.png
(PDF on CourtListener)
Quote:
His application at the time of approval didn’t disclose any sanctions against him. See Dkt 11. Since that time, he has been sanctioned at least twice by other federal courts for his representation of The Satanic Temple. The District of Minnesota imposed Rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit. See The Satanic Temple Inc v City of Belle Plaine, 2021 WL 4199369, *20–21 (D Minn) (on appeal). The District of Massachusetts imposed sanctions for abusive subpoena practice. See The Satanic Temple Inc v City of Boston, 2022 WL 1028925, *6–7 (D Mass).

Attorney Matt Kezhaya must SHOW CAUSE why his admission to practice pro hac vice before this Court shouldn’t be revoked.
Click to expand...

1674254226358.png
1674254299829.png1674254350623.png1674254366941.png
(PDF on CourtListener)
Quote:
The brief history above makes it appear quite doubtful that Attorney Kezhaya is capable of conforming his conduct to acceptable practice in federal court. His explanations as to the two sanctions entered against him also fail to convince that they weren’t justified. See Dkt 60 at 3–12. But he has adequately explained that the sanctions don’t (at least at this juncture) warrant revocation of his admission pro hac vice. As such, he may continue as counsel in this litigation.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Nova902, BBChannel, Anal Cherry Job and 18 others
TJBirish said:
But that doesn't have any bearing on how the judge rules on the case, does it?
Click to expand...
It shouldn't.
Kezhaya is just fulfilling the criteria of a Minnesotan lawyer sponsoring an out of state lawyer for pro hac vice.
Honestly, I'm surprised Randazza just doesn't apply for the MN state bar since he is licensed 5 states already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roboute Guilliman and Kosher Salt
Well, he got Randazza. He’s raised the stakes and is going to pay the maximum out of pocket for a case he could have answered in December and immediately moved for dismissal with prejudice for Montagraph being a weird melonhumper.

I understand that arguing your own case as a lawyer is a bad idea but it’s like trying to hire Jimmy Cochran to argue a parking ticket. In the end, we all win as motormouth Nick starts racking up big fees to shoot down a nuisance lawsuit.

I’ve got my popcorn ready.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harvey Danger, Associate Rick and thrusting
Balldo's Gate said:
Matt Kezhaya
View attachment 4305368
(Twitter | Archive)

From an archive of Crown Law's website as saved by the Wayback Machine, the blurb for Crown Law and Matt Kezhaya:

View attachment 4304834
(Wayback Machine)

View attachment 4304999
(Wayback Machine - click "Matt")

Matt Kezhaya and the Satanic Temple

Matt Kezhaya has represented the Satanic Temple and served or serves as general counsel for the organization.

The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Hellerstedt
District Court, S.D. Texas (Docket on CourtListener)

View attachment 4305583
View attachment 4305182View attachment 4305195
(PDF on CourtListener)
Quote:


View attachment 4305263
View attachment 4305271View attachment 4305277View attachment 4305279
(PDF on CourtListener)
Quote:
Click to expand...
I love lolsuits. Just a few hours ago I was bemoaning the fact that the laughs were ending now that rackets had found counsel, and now I have laughed even harder then ever.

Cheers everyone!
 
  • DRINK!
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: not william stenchever, Puff, waffle and 1 other person
5t3n0g0ph3r said:
It shouldn't.
Kezhaya is just fulfilling the criteria of a Minnesotan lawyer sponsoring an out of state lawyer for pro hac vice.
Honestly, I'm surprised Randazza just doesn't apply for the MN state bar since he is licensed 5 states already.
Click to expand...
Most likely CLEs, if I had to guess.
1674277974345.png
 
talk talk talk said:
The law firm sponsoring Randazza seems odd. Their web site (crown.law) lists a bunch of brag cases as these sites tend to do, but they are all in Arkansas, not Minnesota.

In addition, the actual sponsoring attorney, Matt Kezhaya, still has his law firm identified as "Kezhaya Law PLC" on his attorney registration. He is also running naked without malpractice coverage.
View attachment 4304078
Click to expand...
Not seeing a problem. This is a LOLsuit after all.

TurboNAS said:
Well, he got Randazza. He’s raised the stakes and is going to pay the maximum out of pocket for a case he could have answered in December and immediately moved for dismissal with prejudice for Montagraph being a weird melonhumper.

I understand that arguing your own case as a lawyer is a bad idea but it’s like trying to hire Jimmy Cochran to argue a parking ticket. In the end, we all win as motormouth Nick starts racking up big fees to shoot down a nuisance lawsuit.

I’ve got my popcorn ready.
Click to expand...
Assume this is a warm up for Rackets suing the Minnesota Lawyer Disciplinary Board if they try to discipline him.

Also Rackets brining in such overpowering force against this weirdo ought to discourage others from doing the same. A cautionary tale of what happens to people who try to bring frivilous lawsuits against him.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Harvey Danger, TurboNAS, Rainbow Idiot and 1 other person
If Montagraph's case gets dismissed, does he have to pay any of Rekieta's legal bills?
 
SargonF00t said:
If Montagraph's case gets dismissed, does he have to pay any of Rekieta's legal bills?
Click to expand...
Not unless it's found frivolous or otherwise in violation of the rules. Minnesota doesn't have an anti-SLAPP statute (it was invalidated as violating Minnesota's right to a jury trial). Even if he does get a fee award, it quite possibly wouldn't be for the full bill, especially if they decide it was unwarranted to hire a lawyer of Randazza's caliber for what may amount to a single dispositive motion.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Roboute Guilliman, Richard Freeman, grapeshark77 and 7 others
AnOminous said:
Not unless it's found frivolous or otherwise in violation of the rules. Minnesota doesn't have an anti-SLAPP statute (it was invalidated as violating Minnesota's right to a jury trial). Even if he does get a fee award, it quite possibly wouldn't be for the full bill, especially if they decide it was unwarranted to hire a lawyer of Randazza's caliber for what may amount to a single dispositive motion.
Click to expand...
What if he gets the case moved to federal court and its struck down there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roboute Guilliman
AnOminous said:
Not unless it's found frivolous or otherwise in violation of the rules. Minnesota doesn't have an anti-SLAPP statute (it was invalidated as violating Minnesota's right to a jury trial). Even if he does get a fee award, it quite possibly wouldn't be for the full bill, especially if they decide it was unwarranted to hire a lawyer of Randazza's caliber for what may amount to a single dispositive motion.
Click to expand...
The general rule is that each party pays his own attorney's fees, but Nick pointed out that Montagraph has asked for costs and attorney's fees in his complaint.

1674322638612.png


I forget what exactly he said but it was something to the effect that he thought the plaintiff requesting them might trigger some Minnesota rule that makes it more likely that the plaintiff ends up owing them if they lose.

@talk talk talk, perhaps you can weigh in?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Associate Rick, Markass the Worst and Useful_Mistake
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back