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

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Wyróżnienie
Balldo's Gate powiedział(a):
Was Rekieta lying when he claimed that Rekieta Law LLC was his job in 2021 or was he lying when he insisted that Rekieta Law LLC had nothing to do with his streaming business in relation to this case?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I know you and Salt have beef, but this has literally nothing to do with what he was saying.
 
Balldo's Gate powiedział(a):
Was Rekieta lying when he claimed that Rekieta Law LLC was his job in 2021 or was he lying when he insisted that Rekieta Law LLC had nothing to do with his streaming business in relation to this case?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
You're talking about legal conclusions, and either argument can be made. It'd only be if a court had made a decision that we'd even know which is correct or if they're simultaneously true.

It could even be that Rekieta Law LLC was one of his jobs in 2021 and it has nothing to do with his streaming business in relation to this case. They're not necessarily gong to be jointly liable if one is a subsidiary or if one of them "owned" the show and one of them "sponsored" it. It'd be up to the plaintiff to make his case for why he thinks Rekieta Law is a proper defendant.
 
Kosher Salt powiedział(a):
You're talking about legal conclusions, and either argument can be made. It'd only be if a court had made a decision that we'd even know which is correct or if they're simultaneously true.

It could even be that Rekieta Law LLC was one of his jobs in 2021 and it has nothing to do with his streaming business in relation to this case. They're not necessarily gong to be jointly liable if one is a subsidiary or if one of them "owned" the show and one of them "sponsored" it. It'd be up to the plaintiff to make his case for why he thinks Rekieta Law is a proper defendant.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Just a reminder, Rekieta Law LLC was terminated in February of 2023, I believe before the suit was filed. It dissolved just after the suit was filed (thanks @Useful_Mistake ). The LLC may have been in arrears at the point of the filing, but it was not terminated.
1721418920071.png
Rekieta Media LLC still exists and is active in Texas.

Edit: Fixed the status of RekietaLaw LLC on the filing of the suit.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Useful_Mistake powiedział(a):
this has literally nothing to do with what he was saying.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
What a bizarre statement.
I would recommend reading the previous page or two and maybe you will be able to figure out the context.

Dixieland Buckaroo powiedział(a):
Just a reminder, Rekieta Law LLC was terminated in February of 2023, I believe before the suit was filed. It dissolved just after the suit was filed (thanks @Useful_Mistake ). The LLC may have been in arrears at the point of the filing, but it was not terminated.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Which was apparently due to an "oversight", but that "oversight" has not been corrected despite more than a year to do it.
 
AnOminous powiedział(a):
I guess at the very least we'll figure out if Randazza is still on the case. I'm thinking yes.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
We all know that Nick only takes the best legal scholars in his fold. Therefore, we'll see a last minute announcement that he is represented by Russell "Hooker King" Greer
 
Useful_Mistake powiedział(a):
We all know that Nick only takes the best legal scholars in his fold. Therefore, we'll see a last minute announcement that he is represented by Russell "Hooker King" Greer
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
"Your honor, I am changing my representation from Randazza to this man in a dried out blue baseball cap. His name is David Stebbins. And my legal defense is that he will stab you in the face if you don't dismiss the case"
 
Dixieland Buckaroo powiedział(a):
I'm assuming since it was just a scheduling conference, nothing big happened unless there was a change of counsel.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
The issue is that there appears to be a pretty big problem with the scheduling.

According to the discovery plan both parties agreed to (according to Nick, without his knowledge or consent) BEFORE his no-hope appeal where he tried to convince the court of appeals to apply a law that's unconstitutional in Minnesota, the deadline for discovery is in two days.

discovery_deadline.png 3
 
Balldo's Gate powiedział(a):
That does not mean the hearing was uneventful.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I am gonna take wild-ass guess the moving the next hearing to November was made on the motion of Nick.

Unless Monty has something crazy going on in his side, I can't think of a reason why his side would want a delay.

I like to believe that Fischer was smiling inwardly when she set the next date. Fully aware of what Nick is going through.
 
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole