Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

What would the outcome of the harassment restraining order be?

  • A WIN for the Toe against Patrick Melton.

    Votes: 62 16.2%
  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.0%
  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 95 24.9%
  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 66 17.3%
  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 155 40.6%

  • Total voters
    382
Based on how cavalier he seems in that post, those complaints amounted to nothing in regards to disciplinary action. I mean, there was a very low chance of that happening, but Nick always likes to hedge his bets with "well, maybe."

Congrats, you troon retards. You've done nothing to hurt Nick and are just giving him more material for the grift mill.
 
Based on how cavalier he seems in that post, those complaints amounted to nothing in regards to disciplinary action. I mean, there was a very low chance of that happening, but Nick always likes to hedge his bets with "well, maybe."

Congrats, you troon retards. You've done nothing to hurt Nick and are just giving him more material for the grift mill.
When he was on Mauler’s podcast with them shitting on She-Hulk, Nick went into how those types of complaints and stuff work irl and how they essentially mean Jack shit in terms of actually getting a lawyer in trouble.
 
Based on how cavalier he seems in that post, those complaints amounted to nothing in regards to disciplinary action. I mean, there was a very low chance of that happening, but Nick always likes to hedge his bets with "well, maybe."

Congrats, you troon retards. You've done nothing to hurt Nick and are just giving him more material for the grift mill.
Basically, if Nick didn't represent them, they are completely irrelevant.

With 45 complaints you just know there's going to be some really autistic ones in the mix. I can't wait.

Edit: I only listened to the first 90 minutes of the Elijah stream but I will go back to hear about Pedobaum.
 
Last edited:
When he was on Mauler’s podcast with them shitting on She-Hulk, Nick went into how those types of complaints and stuff work irl and how they essentially mean Jack shit in terms of actually getting a lawyer in trouble.
The first thing any bar investigator looks at when initially looking at a complaint is who is this guy and what's his relation to the lawyer. If the answer is "some mongoloid mad at the Internet" they couldn't give less of a shit.
 
The first thing any bar investigator looks at when initially looking at a complaint is who is this guy and what's his relation to the lawyer. If the answer is "some mongoloid mad at the Internet" they couldn't give less of a shit.
So in order to have a chance to get at nick they would have to get a former client of his to submit a complaint. Like get that fat bitch who stole all the money to say that Nick made her suck his dick or something.
 
Last edited:
So in order to have a chance to get at nick they would have to get a former client of his to submit a complaint. Like get that fat bitch who stole all the money to say that Nick made her suck his dick or something.
Short of very few things like commingling client funds with your own, or outright stealing, or robbing a bank or something, bar investigators usually don't approach these things aggressively unless they're client-related. If a judge made a recommendation that would also probably be taken more seriously.

It generally has to involve clients, the legal system itself, or "crimes of moral turpitude," which are stealing, cheating and lying, by and large. Being a giant shitlord and other First Amendment protected activities aren't covered, short of very specific activities like improperly trying to influence an ongoing court case where you're acting as counsel.

Even in that limited set of circumstances, outrageous statements by lawyers are still largely protected, see in particular Yagman. While California is probably more liberal in such regards than Minnesota, Nick has gone nowhere even near the line much less crossed it.
 
Honestly, Nick really needs to stop talking about anything non-law related. He has some of the worst takes I’ve ever seen in my life.
At least with the law he can claim he’s correct because he’s a lawyer. I still stand firm he misinterpreted the Kim Potter case and pretty much anyone watching could tell she was going to be guilty, but he can claim some level of expertise over me.
But literally everything else is a basic bitch reaction take and they’re all almost incel tier levels of stupid. He’s in the comment section of his most recent video trying to argue again and again for his “never cry, if you cry for any reason you’ll loose respect from the entire world” take her again, and you can’t at h in real time how he had to sit and let his fans do the talking for him and then went “I stopped talking forever ago haha”

He’s literally at the point where he lets his fanboys do his arguing for him whenever there’s any actual disagreement from someone he can’t monetize
 
A swing and a miss, faggot.
3.png
Tweet | Archive

1.jpg2.jpg
 
The reply is even funnier tbh

View attachment 3713277
I used my full dox to try and get this man's livelihood taken away because my favorite groomer who chopped off his penis told me to do it and now he is going to read my full dox and complaint on a stream for money. Wahhhh
Imagine consenting to give your information to a random lawyer who has never represented you, and then getting mad when the lawyer publicizes that consensually disclosed information. None of these people even know what the Rules of Professional Conduct are. The closest they can get to an ethical violation, I would hazard, is 8.4(g) or (h) :
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
...
(g) harass a person on the basis of sex, race, age, creed, religion, color, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, status with regard to public assistance, ethnicity, or marital status in connection with a lawyer's professional activities;
But comment 5 to 8.4 states that harassment here must be connected to the lawyer's professional activities. It leaves open 8.4(h) as a source of violation:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
...
(h) commit a discriminatory act, prohibited by federal, state, or local statute or ordinance that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer. Whether a discriminatory act reflects adversely on a lawyer's fitness as a lawyer shall be determined after consideration of all the circumstances, including:
(1) the seriousness of the act;
(2) whether the lawyer knew that the act was prohibited by statute or ordinance;
(3) whether the act was part of a pattern of prohibited conduct; and
(4) whether the act was committed in connection with the lawyer's professional activities;
Comment 5 to the Rule clarifies:
Harassment, even if not committed in connection with the lawyer's professional activities, violates paragraph (h) if the harassment (1) is prohibited by antidiscrimination legislation and (2) reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer, determined as specified in paragraph (h).
So what anti-discrimination legislation has Nick violated? As far as I can tell, making fun of retards on the Internet is not against any anti-discrimination law. Indeed, comment 8 to the Rule states: "it would also be relevant that the lawyer reasonably believed that his or her conduct was protected under the state or federal constitution."

There's no way I can see to go after Nick for being mean to troons on the Internet—UNLESS there's absolutely terrible case law at work in Minnesota. But I assume, since this is Nick's career and how he supports his family, he'd be fully aware of ethics decisions propagated by his state bar that make trannies a class protected from humor on the Internet.
 
The reply is even funnier tbh

View attachment 3713277
I used my full dox to try and get this man's livelihood taken away because my favorite groomer who chopped off his penis told me to do it and now he is going to read my full dox and complaint on a stream for money. Wahhhh
Keffals supporters are just as retarded as Keffals, if not more. Rekeita explicitly told the internet that he'd be reading all ethics complaints and revealing the people who sent them. If they didn't want their dox revealed by Nick, they shouldn't send clearly bogus complaints about Nick's actions that are protected by 1a.
 
Back