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: 63 16.9%
  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 95 25.5%
  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 64 17.2%
  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 147 39.4%

  • Total voters
    373
How long does rumble take to process a VOD? trying to decide if I should wait unti I'm back home before trying to watch last night's stream.
No idea which one was last night for you but I'm currently watching "Is This What it Feels Like to Win?" and I can see the 10 hour Darrell Brooks stream too.
 
No idea which one was last night for you but I'm currently watching "Is This What it Feels Like to Win?" and I can see the 10 hour Darrell Brooks stream too.
The Winningone, yeah. It looks like it just finished processing after I made my post. I could only see the last couple of hours before.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: yydszmiteg2
did they understand that last part? like how arbitrary their actions were and how schizoid CF was with their response?
That was one of the more lengthy awkward silences during the meeting. I brought this up specifically (both their blog history praising free speech and then their full 180 on their "we're not banning anybody" stance with KF. I asked them directly, "if you're willing to make a public statement telling people off for demanding censorship and regretting ever banning anyone, and then turn around less than 48 hours later and ban someone anyway, how can we even remotely trust your service?"

The best assurance they could offer (after a lot of back-and-forth) was "well if there's ever any kind of controversy we'd talk to you first before we took any action" along with a vague promise that they'd give us a "couple of days" to transfer off the platform if it ever came to that.

It was fucking ridiculous, and they know we're not happy.

There’s bank to be made, Null. Nobody likes to see potential cash flows be out of their grasp.
Firing paying customers (or profitable users) is expensive, though. That's the crazy part. They're giving up cash flows when they ban people. Banning never improves revenue -- the people clamoring for it aren't paying customers and are rarely profitable users themselves, and they never stop demanding more and more bans anyway. The mythical "end of our boycott" never comes because there's always someone else offending them that simply must be removed.
 
How long does rumble take to process a VOD? trying to decide if I should wait unti I'm back home before trying to watch last night's stream.
When I started watching at 8:45 it only had the most recent 4 hours 4 minutes, now (9:15) it has all 4 hours 14 minutes. Hope that helps.
 
The best assurance they could offer (after a lot of back-and-forth) was "well if there's ever any kind of controversy we'd talk to you first before we took any action" along with a vague promise that they'd give us a "couple of days" to transfer off the platform if it ever came to that.

It was fucking ridiculous, and they know we're not happy.
Okay I was just thinking about parlor and trump and this shit.

Its one thing if Cloud flare contacted Null and explained the issues (they never did) and I dont know cloud flares service cycle like they would finish the current billing term and just not renew it.

But like with trump he jumped to a new service and fucking AWS killed their contract on the spot.

I have to ask would your company been better answered if they just went full "oh that was on orders of our pedo overlords, and your not in the buisness of exposing our pedo overlords rights?"
 
Because he is a shitlib.

But what’s worse is that Legal Eagle’s legal analysis is generally terrible. He has a nice presentation and it’s enough to impress a lot of non lawyers and law students (which he tries to sell shitty study programs to btw) but actual lawyers think he’s a joke.
I mean, when EFAP can destroy his Captain Marvel defense...

Maybe Darrell Brooks is using Legal Eagle's advice?
 
Cuck Retarda of Recucka Law cowers in fear to the axewound, will he grow a pair of balls and call out the flaggot groomers, or will he save his precious Jewtube channel and let it go like a buckbroken niggerboy who mouthed off to massuh? Find out next time on Kiwiball Z
Holy shit with the fucking buzzwords already, you pink triangle fuck.

On topic comment: I too am glad the drunk lawyer man is back.
 
I have to ask would your company been better answered if they just went full "oh that was on orders of our pedo overlords, and your not in the buisness of exposing our pedo overlords rights?"
Funny you should ask! They wouldn't intimate whether the decision to ban KF was entirely driven internally or as the result of external legal pressure and were very shifty about it. Bear in mind these were mostly sales drones, but of course it was clear within moments of my first question about it that they knew exactly what I was talking about (I didn't actually mention KF by name at first, just that they "unilaterally banned a controversial website without notice").

They did indeed try to assure us that because our business doesn't involve end-user interactions or user-generated content of any kind, we would "probably" never run afoul of whatever vague threat (which they never defined despite my asking several times) finally motivated them to ban KF.

To be blunt, yes, I would have been far happier if they'd actually just said either "we decided KF crossed the line, and we're not going into details about it with you" or "yes, behind the scenes someone important threatened us with major consequences if we didn't, and we're not going into details about it with you." That would at least show internally-consistent behavior (either they collectively decided censorship was justified or they collectively decided they'd rather take this heat than lose the entire business). The fact that they were so uncomfortable in that meeting and simply couldn't give a straight answer tells me there was significant disagreement about the action and they (still) haven't been given coherent instructions on what to tell angry customers -- possibly because there could well still be internal strife over it.

One coworker who's used CF for years for various things didn't actually believe me at first when I relayed the details of the meeting to him until his boss (who was present for it) said "nah, Moocow ain't lyin'."

Prince's rapid 180 after praising free speech lends credence to the idea that something big beyond any one company's control cleared its throat to provoke this action. My colleagues have a gut feeling that some troon-sympathetic mid-level (or higher) manager at Visa/MC caught wind of this shitstorm who had enough influence convince his masters to threaten to block CF's credit card processing if they didn't take action.

Even though it's likely they could get that reversed (assuming they complied, of course), that would make international news and raise serious doubts among customers and shareholders about CF's long-term viability. After all, if you're in a public-facing business like CF is and you can't take credit card payments, you're sunk. Nobody cares whose fault it is; they only care that your revenue has suddenly dropped to near-zero.

It's really the only realistic "major" thing any of us could think of that's big enough for CF to consider a direct existential threat worthy of immediate action. The only other things we could think of was either whatever corporate bank they use started growling or some shady government spook threatened to sic the SEC, FTC or IRS on them or something.
 
Funny you should ask! They wouldn't intimate whether the decision to ban KF was entirely driven internally or as the result of external legal pressure and were very shifty about it. Bear in mind these were mostly sales drones, but of course it was clear within moments of my first question about it that they knew exactly what I was talking about (I didn't actually mention KF by name at first, just that they "unilaterally banned a controversial website without notice").

They did indeed try to assure us that because our business doesn't involve end-user interactions or user-generated content of any kind, we would "probably" never run afoul of whatever vague threat (which they never defined despite my asking several times) finally motivated them to ban KF.

To be blunt, yes, I would have been far happier if they'd actually just said either "we decided KF crossed the line, and we're not going into details about it with you" or "yes, behind the scenes someone important threatened us with major consequences if we didn't, and we're not going into details about it with you." That would at least show internally-consistent behavior (either they collectively decided censorship was justified or they collectively decided they'd rather take this heat than lose the entire business). The fact that they were so uncomfortable in that meeting and simply couldn't give a straight answer tells me there was significant disagreement about the action and they (still) haven't been given coherent instructions on what to tell angry customers -- possibly because there could well still be internal strife over it.

One coworker who's used CF for years for various things didn't actually believe me at first when I relayed the details of the meeting to him until his boss (who was present for it) said "nah, Moocow ain't lyin'."

Prince's rapid 180 after praising free speech lends credence to the idea that something big beyond any one company's control cleared its throat to provoke this action. My colleagues have a gut feeling that some troon-sympathetic mid-level (or higher) manager at Visa/MC caught wind of this shitstorm who had enough influence convince his masters to threaten to block CF's credit card processing if they didn't take action.

Even though it's likely they could get that reversed (assuming they complied, of course), that would make international news and raise serious doubts among customers and shareholders about CF's long-term viability. After all, if you're in a public-facing business like CF is and you can't take credit card payments, you're sunk. Nobody cares whose fault it is; they only care that your revenue has suddenly dropped to near-zero.

It's really the only realistic "major" thing any of us could think of that's big enough for CF to consider a direct existential threat worthy of immediate action. The only other things we could think of was either whatever corporate bank they use started growling or some shady government spook threatened to sic the SEC, FTC or IRS on them or something.
From the way Prince sperged out and the wording of his statement, I genuinely think he had his family threatened.
 
Also, they openly discussed Null's account information with us and lied that he was a "free" user (he wasn't). The only assurance they would give us that we wouldn't just get unilaterally shut off if some prima donna whined about us was that we were an enterprise customer. I literally asked "so we only get free speech because we're paying for it?" and got a dumbfounded look but no response. That seriously worried the C-levels on my end. And they talk to other C-levels at other companies.

I can't give details on what my company does for obvious reasons but suffice to say we do not allow or publish any user-generated content but we do provide aggregated (public) data to paying customers. Nothing even remotely controversial, but given how fucking stupid our current batch of politicians are, you never know.

This has not been a casual nothingburger for Cloudflare. High-value customers are fucking pissed and (justifiably) very worried that they could be next now that it's been shown that an angry tranny can knock down the whole house of cards. There are a great many conversations happening in private at a lot of big companies right now concerning whether to continue using Cloudflare. Their actual services are fantastic but they've just proven they're vulnerable in a different (and infinitely more exploitable and unpredictable) fashion that renders it all worthless. It doesn't matter one bit how theoretically tough and fast your security services may be if you can be scared into just turning it off.
It is a smart move for your company. Data can easily be interpreted as racist, transphobic or otherwise offensive by its mere existence. FBI crime stats for example.
 
That was one of the more lengthy awkward silences during the meeting. I brought this up specifically (both their blog history praising free speech and then their full 180 on their "we're not banning anybody" stance with KF. I asked them directly, "if you're willing to make a public statement telling people off for demanding censorship and regretting ever banning anyone, and then turn around less than 48 hours later and ban someone anyway, how can we even remotely trust your service?"

The best assurance they could offer (after a lot of back-and-forth) was "well if there's ever any kind of controversy we'd talk to you first before we took any action" along with a vague promise that they'd give us a "couple of days" to transfer off the platform if it ever came to that.

It was fucking ridiculous, and they know we're not happy.


Firing paying customers (or profitable users) is expensive, though. That's the crazy part. They're giving up cash flows when they ban people. Banning never improves revenue -- the people clamoring for it aren't paying customers and are rarely profitable users themselves, and they never stop demanding more and more bans anyway. The mythical "end of our boycott" never comes because there's always someone else offending them that simply must be removed.
Just funny overall because actions speak louder than words and they assume that no one is going to do more than a cursory glance at this situation (from the perspective of a potential CF customer) . Their response to the question comes off as ill-prepared, but it's easy to show that they did not provide Null with any options or leeway. Even assuming the bullshit that KF was a free customer, that only leads to more questions.

I've never looked deep into CF business culture, but there's obviously conflict between the companies "original vision" and what they are right now. All of these shenanigans seems like a big turning point for a lot of stuff at the very least.
 
1665241741571.png
1665241751642.png

People celebrating Rekieta getting banned - Last post 2 days ago.
 
Tranny-frens, I'm not feeling so good... :(

Edit: How is such an extraordinarily disgusting fuckface like Legal Eagle so popular on YouTube, with each video getting over at least a million views? He's one of few "content creators" that truly rustles my jimmies. It's like his entire existence screams out "inauthentic cocksucker".
The same reason why people think going to Olive Garden is "fancy dining".....they're uneducated
 
I've never actually watched a Nick stream that didn't involve Jersh or Metokur, but I am happy he got his shit back. He didn't do anything wrong. Giving out names from a public record is not a crime. He even redacted information he didn't have to, which is a step beyond what someone like Taylor Lorenz would do.
You have to watch the Nick and Drex Jack Murphy stream. It was hilarious.
It's great how Ralph and Keffals keep losing.

Kiwi Farms and Nick's channel refuse to stay dead. The gloating just make it sweeter.
Shart bros to the end!
Legal Mindset (Andrew) just called out one of the snakes live "Lady Rackets has done more for Nick than Law & Lumber"
Didn't think about L&L but he is kinda gun shy after getting accused of looking at Heard's attorneys computer during trial. He also doesn't fit the Nick mould really. I don't remember seeing anything from Emily but I don't think that would make her a snake.
Why do people think Kurt The Sperg and Hoeg Law are the same person?
How can people not tell them apart?
As far as I know those two said nothing publicly at all to support him. Fair to say snake wouldn't be the best word . Snake was what Mindset called those saying nothing, not those 'not doing enough ' such as Lbytes who did post publicly maybe once. Nick mentioned on the stream that the Twitter outcry was what made it up the chain not all of his other attempts

Andrew probably said it nicer than I did, basically he helped their channels grow a lot. Personally I think Rob was only on Rackets show to get an audience which may have biased my choice of words
No one knows what Andrew may have discussed in private. That's all I can think of as justification.
The masculine urge to dominate and threaten women.
No operation can remove misogyny.
 
Back