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.

[Twitter Is Cancer]

Rekieta's a case of arrested development, a perpetual creepy teenager so of course he resents real children. His school and college years would have been a nightmare since he's a typical crypto-jew dweeb so now he has to cope and compensate and get everything normal people get some of in their school years.
That's why the cheerleader wife, the toys, the constant narcissistic pompous shouting and speech making.
As for his trust fund or lack of it, his family although clearly ashamed of him (proof: the family pictures on instagram, a story told in 20 snapshots) care for his children as part of their legacy even if their actual son is the stuff of nightmares and shame.
Reiketa's lucky his enemies are nowhere near as ferocious as for example EVS' enemies or there would have been a welfare check or worse organized for Rekieta long ago.
I see Rekieta as the intersection between TUG and EVS, minus all the body fat but with insanely high jew levels to make up for it.

That clip awhile back about wanting to spend Christmas down in Jamaica away from all the holiday responsibilities to his kids got me wondering. Could it be his trust fund allowance was increased due to the kids?

He’s mentioned having jobs when he was younger that he hated, but it seems once the kids came into the picture he didn’t have to work anymore, he even speaks of his lawyering in a way one would talk about a hobby.

Is it possible that when he was younger his parents put a cap on the trust fund payout that made him work, but kept him from destitution, in an attempt to force him to grow and develop like a normal person? Could it be Nick had kids, not out of a desire for family, but instead to get greater access to his familial wealth? It might explain why:

• two parents always at home need a nanny
• no concern about the kids seeing the risque pictures of them
• going on trips exclusively to satisfy their kinks
• speaking with annoyance anytime responsibilities to the kids come up
• 40+ year old wife with nose ring (strongest argument for case)

A month or two ago I would of never considered this. Things move fast in the spiral.

e

 

[AnOminous]

Even though it was during a stream that was long after the Hedonism event, I do remember him saying that he had a St.Andrew's Cross hidden under the bed because of a superchat which made me frown slightly about why he would say such a thing.
From then on, he kept disappointing more and more.

Isn't that fucking blasphemous in addition to being deviant?

 

[Kosher Dill]

Could it be Nick had kids, not out of a desire for family, but instead to get greater access to his familial wealth?

I'll admit to not being up on how trust funds are typically structured, but it seems unlikely that there would be any built-in incentive for having like 12 kids, right? You would think if there is any "trigger" clause in there it'd just be something like "When you have kids", and one would do.

 

[SanicBlackMagic]

That clip awhile back about wanting to spend Christmas down in Jamaica away from all the holiday responsibilities to his kids got me wondering.

• no concern about the kids seeing the risque pictures of them
• going on trips exclusively to satisfy their kinks
• speaking with annoyance anytime responsibilities to the kids come up
• 40+ year old wife with nose ring (strongest argument for case)

To play the not-so-crypto-jew's advocate: raising kids, especially a boat load of them (doesn't he have 5 or more?) takes a lot out of people. A lot of freedoms and things adults enjoy have to be put on the backburner. It could be that they are reasonably responsible (for degenerates) and dont normalize their sexcapades to their children. Hence, the trips where they can indulge in debauchery without their children knowing, and the fact that they ostensibly hide their sextoys when they're not in use. In their situation, I could see it as a reasonable compromise. However, the fact that he's an online persona, and nothing posted on the internet ever truly goes away, does poke holes in that theory.

Don't forget the abundance of trailer trash tats.
Drug use.
Excessive drinking.

Mini Hunter Biden.

Only if they start taking trips to Epsteins (under new ownership) FBIsland and diddling kids.

Isn't that fucking blasphemous in addition to being deviant?

A jew, being blasphemous? They would never! What are you, an antisemite?

 

[FILTH Tourist]

Isn't that fucking blasphemous in addition to being deviant?

Nick always struck me as pretty casual with his faith. His prayers are always done from superchat requests, doesn't seem to have any issues saying things like "God damn it", and he wears a pope hat while reading a schizo manifesto. So him having a Saint Andrew's cross and being ok with calling it that doesn't suprise me one bit.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

If an ethics complaint is investigated, it becomes public, including their full name and address.

To be specific, the records become public record when the OLPR concludes that probable cause exists for public discipline, or if the matter is presented before the MN Supreme Court or a referee appointed by the same. These complaints were frivolous and were not investigated, even for private discipline. So the corollary to your point is that nothing in these complaints are part of the public record, and cannot be released to the public except to the extent that the complainant(s) or Nick release that information.

"If you are not comfortable with the attorney having certain information, do not put it in your complaint."

Obviously the attorneys are furnished with all the information provided in complaints so they can respond effectively to them.

But complainants are required to provide an address. Should it be that complainants have to be willing to have their address being posted on social media by the aggrieved party in order to make an ethics complaint? Michael Avenatti is still using Twitter. Would it be unethical for him to take the name and home address of the paraplegic client who he embezzled from and blast it on his account with 620k followers with the message "this guy tried to ruin my life"? Would that be "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice", which is the wording of the relevant rule?

If the only recourse for a potential complainant who does not want their address to be posted on social media by the attorney they are complaining about is to not file a complaint, then it's possible some people will be deterred from filing as a result of that reprisal. That appears to be a state of affairs that the Minnesota OLPR would view as undesirable, and they have an interest in regulating that.

Some of the dissuaded people might actually have legitimate grievances with an attorney instead of thinking that if they whine loud enough to enough people they could stifle someone's 1A-protected speech.

"Nick's threat to dox the complainants" is something that they consented to already, and something that was already guaranteed to happen if their complaint was successful.

"Public record" != "public". If you go to the OLPR website, you will find precisely zero addresses of successful ethics complainants. You would have to make a request for the full discipline record for the attorney in question yourself.

In 2021, 872 out of 889 written requests for public records disclosure to the OLPR were from governmental agencies, various bar associations/out-of-state lawyer discipline agencies, or from individuals who were attorneys (this will include a lot of people requesting their own records). My guess is if you're one of that <2% who are none of those, you're going to be at the very back of the line. So I do take some issue with the idea that these people are auto-doxed. Someone would have to put in a level of legwork.

And again, the issue wasn't that the complainants are innocent victims and the addresses shouldn't or couldn't be posted. If a rando obtained the documents and posted them in full, there's nothing wrong with that. Nick also could have just posted them on Locals unredacted and took them down after a few hours and say "Oopsie! I accidentally posted the wrong file!" and when it's out there, it's out there. Instead he threatened to post them unredacted while explicitly stating that his motive for doing so was his anger towards people who filed ethics complaints against him. These are the occupational hazards that result from being a retard.

It may be a closer call than you think. I doubt it's disbarrable but it's at least conceivable he gets a sternly worded reprimand for it. I don't think he should under the circumstances, but the fact he's not been going on about it indicates he may be concerned.

He's certainly not getting disbarred but it's worth noting that this comes at the same time that the OLPR is attempting to convince the MN Supreme Court to change the rules to allow them to withhold more information on ethics complaints from the public record. That means they may have an incentive to try to make an example of Nick with a public reprimand even if it would usually not cross that threshold.

 

[Phillip Green]

I'll admit to not being up on how trust funds are typically structured, but it seems unlikely that there would be any built-in incentive for having like 12 kids, right? You would think if there is any "trigger" clause in there it'd just be something like "When you have kids", and one would do.

This is another one of those retarded theories that Nick can use to discredit the Farms as know-nothings. Nick may have a trust fund, but his recent ability to fuck off and go on ridiculously expensive sodomy vacations certainly doesn't depend on one. He made a shit ton of money over the last couple years, the kind of money where throwing $30k at a vacation is not a big deal.

The simplest explanation for the number of kids is he married an ultra-religious Minnesota hausfrau who wanted a bunch of babies. I think LR even explicitly stated this on one of the streams. There's no need for additional conspiracies to laugh at Nick, the embarrassing takes he offers up freely on the show are more than enough.

And I don't really take the resenting the kids angle too seriously either. Anyone who's had kids, spent a day with them yelling in your ear, slobbering on your shirt, and shiting, pissing, and vomiting in a myriad of locations you then have to clean, will say some unkind things about the little bastards after a few drinks. A good night's sleep later, and they're the apple of your eye again.

That said, Nick's whining about it in the midst of this weird <Toye voice>"I want to talk about boobs and sex"</Toye voice> mid-life crisis teenage reversion isn't helping his cause.

 

[Strix454]

That clip awhile back about wanting to spend Christmas down in Jamaica away from all the holiday responsibilities to his kids got me wondering. Could it be his trust fund allowance was increased due to the kids?

He’s mentioned having jobs when he was younger that he hated, but it seems once the kids came into the picture he didn’t have to work anymore, he even speaks of his lawyering in a way one would talk about a hobby.

Is it possible that when he was younger his parents put a cap on the trust fund payout that made him work,

I doubt the parents had much to do with it. The grandparents would have put the restrictions into the trusts. His grandfather died in 2016. A restriction that can be put in these sorts of trusts is that the recipient has to have some form of gainful employment.
One theory would be that Nick took up the law and law school with the idea of creating a "plausible employment" for the purposes of the trust which didn't require him to do much (if any) actual work. He would not be the first person to have done that.
I dont know when the kids were born, but his "normal employment" ended around 2011. He then went full-time to law school and has never had regular employment since.
And I'm pretty sure that neither YT nor his lawyering paid for that house he is living in. IMO the house indicates he is getting substantial money from a trust.
And yeah, he complains about having been a bank teller and a customer service rep at a retirement company, but what did he expect he was going to get graduating from a rural nothing state college with a creative writing degree?

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Michael Avenatti is still using Twitter.

Well, not for a while.

 

[Kosher Dill]

The simplest explanation for the number of kids is he married an ultra-religious Minnesota hausfrau

Is Bottle Wife actually ultra-religious or is she just "trad" in the same way Nick is/isn't?

 

[AnOminous]

To play the not-so-crypto-jew's advocate: raising kids, especially a boat load of them (doesn't he have 5 or more?) takes a lot out of people.

So why did he have five of them if he doesn't even like them and is shit-talking his own kids on the Internet? Imagine finding out your freak of a dad is not only into Balldos and gay bars but doesn't even like you.

 

[SanicBlackMagic]

So why did he have five of them if he doesn't even like them and is shit-talking his own kids on the Internet? Imagine finding out your freak of a dad is not only into Balldos and gay bars but doesn't even like you.

Huh, I didn't know that piece of lore. Certainly does raise the question of why he had the first kid, or the four following.
And yeah, that would be a pretty shitty childhood. But it could have been worse. Rosie will soon be wishing she could'be been born a Rakiets kid.

Nick, youre a few steps above the gunt at the moment, see that you dont sink any lower.

EDIT: WAIT! I know why! Tax deductions. The greedy kike.

 

[AnOminous]

And I don't really take the resenting the kids angle too seriously either. Anyone who's had kids, spent a day with them yelling in your ear, slobbering on your shirt, and shiting, pissing, and vomiting in a myriad of locations you then have to clean, will say some unkind things about the little bastards after a few drinks.

And then it will be immediately forgotten. Instead this asshole is putting it on the permanent record.

 

[Phillip Green]

Is Bottle Wife actually ultra-religious or is she just "trad" in the same way Nick is/isn't?

In her own words she used to be a "prude". Half of all this faggotry appears to be that they used to actually be very conservative, but abandoned their old beliefs sometimes in the last couple years. They are now rubberbanding from being repressed, going well past a healthy or balanced attitude towards sex and into the view that industrial equipment should be involved in the lovemaking process.

And then it will be immediately forgotten. Instead this asshole is putting it on the permanent record.

100% correct. These are the kind of complaints about sex and family you whine confidentially to your close drinking buddies after a frustrating day, they nod sympathetically, and then everyone forgets about it by the next drink. It's not something you tell every asshole on the internet.

 

[feral cat #6385]

And then it will be immediately forgotten. Instead this asshole is putting it on the permanent record.

Yep. Where his kids can see it and resent him for it. Very dumb. Even if you think it you don't voice shit like this publicly. You keep shit like that private. You ABSOLOUTELY DO NOT discuss it on a livestream like a pouty teenager. Dumbass comments like that will stick to you forever. Only an immature asshole wouldn't understand that.

I don't see a nose stream. But Louis Rossman has a livesteam going. His cat cut its eye going through trash and he had to haul it to an emercency vet. Thoughts and prayers for Mr. Clinton.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Obviously the attorneys are furnished with all the information provided in complaints so they can respond effectively to them.

But complainants are required to provide an address. Should it be that complainants have to be willing to have their address being posted on social media by the aggrieved party in order to make an ethics complaint? Michael Avenatti is still using Twitter. Would it be unethical for him to take the name and home address of the paraplegic client who he embezzled from and blast it on his account with 620k followers with the message "this guy tried to ruin my life"? Would that be "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice", which is the wording of the relevant rule?

If the only recourse for a potential complainant who does not want their address to be posted on social media by the attorney they are complaining about is to not file a complaint, then it's possible some people will be deterred from filing as a result of that reprisal. That appears to be a state of affairs that the Minnesota OLPR would view as undesirable, and they have an interest in regulating that.

Some of the dissuaded people might actually have legitimate grievances with an attorney instead of thinking that if they whine loud enough to enough people they could stifle someone's 1A-protected speech.

Operative words being "THE CLIENT." A lawyer presumably already has their contact info (including name and address). More importantly, a lawyer already has an ethical obligation to not act against their client's best interests, which, yes, in some cases supersedes the lawyer's right to free speech.

If you're not the lawyer's client, you should probably be very cautious about the information you give them in your complaint. They don't have any particular ethical obligations toward you that they wouldn't some random person they meet in the street.

Putting a former client on blast for whatever reason would likely be unethical for a lawyer. Putting some random asshole who tried to speak to your manager on blast isn't.

 

[ThisHill2DieOn]

I haven't watched any Nick content since his birthday stream, which I only got like an hour into. Went back tonight and started watching more of it because of hearing of Kurt's spergout. Dude literally started crossing Megan lmao. Her point was retarded, but seeing the balding, obese man in his late 30's with the attitude of a 15 year old have a conniption fit about not getting any pussy was funny. Okay, back to talking about Noseman being a salty faggot

The best part was that Kurt is so oblivious to being a fat detestable retard that he then sat there and smugged on stream for a solid hour or so while chatting on Nick's Locals that he was totally in the right. I know I've talked several times about these few incels I personally know (and I've known them a long time, before they became the psychos they are now), but I can honestly say that between the socially retarded psychosis of Antifa and BLM and incels, incels are the fuckers that scare me the most.

Also, Rackets calling Farmers incels is hilarious given that one of his internet fwiends, WHO IS LITERALLY AN INCEL, shit trashed one of his other fwiends live on his bday stream. But hey, we all know the real incels are the randos on KF that say slut-parading his wife like a whore for his fanbase to jerk off to might be a bad idea. By all means, encourage your wife's lingerie pics for your Locals mongoloids to masturbate to and then shit on critics that point out your wife is basically making onlyfans content, but not even having the brains to get directly paid for it. Remember all that shit about how onlyfans is a mistake and sending nudes is a pathway to endless regret? Maybe listen to your own shit, you gout-nosed drunken nigger. Or don't.

Seriously dude, wtf is this shit and how in the fuck can you, in any right mind, pretend that this shit is copesetic?

Nick always struck me as pretty casual with his faith. His prayers are always done from superchat requests, doesn't seem to have any issues saying things like "God damn it", and he wears a pope hat while reading a schizo manifesto. So him having a Saint Andrew's cross and being ok with calling it that doesn't suprise me one bit.

He doesn't even go to church. He watches televangelist shit at home. He's mentioned this often. I'm basically an atheist and I probably attend church more often, due to several extended family members being pastors.

 

[Car Won't Crank]

He's got a St. Andrews cross? At his house? Thats a pretty specialized piece of S&M gear; no shoe0nhead grade """BDSM lifestyler""" would even know what that is.

If they do truly own one, Id reckon he and lady rakets probably have a little dungeon setup in their house. And if thats the case, I wonder just how much exposure their kids have had to their sexcapades. Imagine stumbling into that one room your parents left unlocked one time...

He also has a sex swing. He explicitly mentioned it on a stream in the recent past. A little dungeon given the current knowledge isn't a totally unreasonable speculation.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Well if they do have a ceiling mount for a sex swing, at least that will prove a handy way for Rackets to an hero, should he ever have a moment of lucidity and shame about his recent words and actions. (He's a sociopath so he won't, to either.)

 

[Balldo's Gate]

In her own words she used to be a "prude". Half of all this faggotry appears to be that they used to actually be very conservative, but abandoned their old beliefs sometimes in the last couple years. They are now rubberbanding from being repressed, going well past a healthy or balanced attitude towards sex and into the view that industrial equipment should be involved in the lovemaking process.

I question the extent to which they were ever devoutly religious, but other than that I tend to agree. It does seem that something snapped this year. I think it's more that things that were kept private they are now making public.

Operative words being "THE CLIENT." A lawyer presumably already has their contact info (including name and address). More importantly, a lawyer already has an ethical obligation to not act against their client's best interests, which, yes, in some cases supersedes the lawyer's right to free speech.

If you're not the lawyer's client, you should probably be very cautious about the information you give them in your complaint. They don't have any particular ethical obligations toward you that they wouldn't some random person they meet in the street.

It's not true at all that lawyers only have ethical responsibilities towards their client. Lawyer disciplinary agencies absolutely can and do take action against lawyers for their actions relating to third parties to the extent that it relates to their practice of law. In general, random people in the street aren't involved in lawyers' practice of law.