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.

[Faticati]

Yeah I strongly defended Nick for this incident, even if it wasn't the wisest thing for him to say. IIRC he said "you go on the wall next to all the other pedophiles and groomers", which was wildly exaggerated by Keffals into "you should be put against a wall and shot"

You get a gold medal for mental gymnastics. I think all these people deserve capital punishment and you can quote me on that. Im not gonna pretend pedophiles and child abusers do not deserve death to protect me internet income.

 

[ThisHill2DieOn]

Rate me late but it just struck me. Does anyone remember that clip from mati where josh talks about how he can't identify as a libertarian anymore, because all they do is just in service to the coom? Literally nick.

It’s the classic joke about libertarians: it’s not a matter of if, but how long before a libertarian starts talking about age of consent laws.

I think many go through this kind of political identity crisis where you try to find out what you are. My experience has been that whenever you begin to wedge yourself into a political philosophy, you become constrained by it. You begin to think of how certain issues fit within your understanding of your adopted political framework rather than simply how you feel about it. This can be convenient, but it also stifles you from exploring ideas and adopting stances that may not fit nearly within you political philosophy.

IMO, drop labels. All of them. All they do is constrain you, make you predictable and seek to make your thoughts similar to others. It also provides useless handwringing and endless invoking of No True Scotsman bullshit.

 

[Twitter Is Cancer]

You get a gold medal for mental gymnastics. I think all these people deserve capital punishment and you can quote me on that. Im not gonna pretend pedophiles and child abusers do not deserve death to protect me internet income.

Also, who the bigger fool, the lying narcissist Rekieta or the simps who tie themselves up in knots explaining away his blatant lies?
It's one of the strangest things about e-cancer and their simps, how the simps explain away shit like this.
Really is cult-like. Same mental defect / quirk

 

[JamusActimus]

His latest cope is pretty solid ngl.

"I am not doing degenerate shit and cheating on my wife BUT I see why you would think that.

A ton of online people did that so it's natural for you to assume I do the same. I am different however."

It's not him admiting he's wrong but it's way less confrontational.

 

[ThisHill2DieOn]

Considering when he said that everyone changed it to ‘against the wall’ which was not what he said he very well could have had a different mraning. And that was his point. The people taking offense at it did not know what he meant and never bothered to ask. They literally made yp entirely different context.

This is “in Minecraft” type of bullshit. Everyone knows what he means. Nick is being coy and playing semantics because he knows outright saying tranny groomers should be executed means losing that JewTube account, which would cut his revenue by roughly 1/3.

This “you don’t know what I really meant bc durr durr im a dumb faggot” is the type of shit that little kids do and good parents, rightfully, shut this type of dumbfuck behavior down. Say what you mean, especially when your job is literally communication. No one wants a have to use a decoder ring to decipher your true meaning.

“Clearly Nick just meant he wanted them on the wall so he could give them a stern warning about the health risks associated with smoking!” This is retarded as fuck nonsense. Pedophiles should be made to bite the curb and have their heads stomped until they are dead. See? That’s how you declare intentions. That’s how you properly communicate.

 

[sneedem&feedem]

If that happened that's not just weird, it's an ethics violation for an attorney representing a client to contact a represented party directly. MN RPC 4.2. And he is representing a client, even though it's his own LLC.

It's seen as an attempt by a lawyer to take advantage of a non-lawyer's legal naivete by bypassing their chosen counsel.

When I described the Elissa clip I said Monty to represent him as a party and not as an individual. Even the tile of the clip says "Monty's lawyer" and Nick doesn't contradict himself at least in that clip. Nick has been in contact with Montegraph before but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that now that Monty has retained a lawyer, he hasn't tried talking to him. Especially since it's an apparent ethics violation in Minnesota.

 

[Strix454]

Nick's streams about the case are already really weird. He goes on and on about he was entitled to an extension because he was served near his birthday or holidays or whatever. He also goes on about how the other attorney was obliged to answer his request for an extension during those same holidays when Nick was too busy to do the response. And because they didn't give an answer on an extension, he somehow had a right to not respond.

Nick is also clueless about the nature of his legal reputation today. The common courtesy that normally exists between attorneys doesn't really apply to dealing one-on-one with a degenerate weirdo who is going to take every single word you say directly to him and put it up on the internet. If you are well-known public asshole like Nick, you have no right to be treated with normal respect. You are going to get the ethical minimum. Nick just doesn't get that. He thinks its still four years ago and that everyone has to be nice to him. If Nick hires someone to represent him, that person will get respect. But Nick directly dealing with anyone isn't going to get it anymore.

One of the videos I watched had some retard playing with his guns while Nick was talking about the inner details of his own case attacking other attorneys and drinking. It just doesn't look good.

 

[Kosher Salt]

He shouldn't be calling Monty at all. It's against ethics rules. I assume you mean he's calling Monty's lawyer?

The lawyer. He tried calling and emailing them to request an extension of time. They intentionally ignored his calls and emails and then filed for default judgement telling the court that they ignored his calls and emails and want a default judgement. Also he says they apparently haven't served any of the documents on him other than the complaint. They never served him an intent to file motion for default, never served the motion for default. They've just been ignoring him.

Then, a few days later, at 1:12 in the below clip, he says he had to go pro se because he hasn't retained Mark Randazza. He backs off his earlier claim by claiming he said he "indicated his intention to retain Randazza." Which would mean he didn't officially retain Randazza when he said he did. The two claims are mutually exclusive.

It sounds like he's trying to lawyer-weasel-speak about whether he is or isn't represented. He said that he was going to wire the retainer "tomorrow," but then days have passed and he says that he didn't retain them when he said he would ("tomorrow")... I note, however, he doesn't say that he didn't retain them at all. He says that as far as the whole world knows, he still isn't represented, which is true: he has not told the opposing counsel that he's represented and asked them to direct all communications to his lawyer, and nobody has yet filed an official notice with the court saying that they're representing him. I can't tell whether he's truly still unrepresented, or whether he's just strategically waiting to announce that he is.

So as far as the court knows, and as far as the opposing counsel knows, he is pro se, and they should be communicating with him for all matters related to the lawsuit. Instead they've been ignoring his calls and emails, and they've admitted as much, for which he's basically accusing them of acting in bad faith and he's trying to use it as leverage.

 

[Swole McPole]

Rate me late but it just struck me. Does anyone remember that clip from mati where josh talks about how he can't identify as a libertarian anymore, because all they do is just in service to the coom? Literally nick.

I never ever knew that people were libertarian because they wanted to fuck kids.

Lets face it, all of the other sexual taboos have been decriminalized now. You've only got fucking your own children and fucking someone else's children left that's regulated by the criminal law. And because that's so taboo, you really never hear libertarians talking about it as a motivation. Maybe Amos Yee, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone else making this case.

I always thought people were libertarian because they were professional people with good jobs and serious drug habits. They support libertarianism because they want to carry on getting wasted without any significant legal consequences.

 

[talk talk talk]

Rackets is going to have to make a showing of all four Finden factors:

1. Reasonable excuse
2. Prompt response
3. Defense on the merits
4. Lack of prejudice to the other side for relief of the default.

Rackets can probably make a sufficient showing on all four to get out of the default. But, if Plaintiff is thinking strategically, his lawyer can make Rackets look like a drunk dumbfuck who decided to stream and drink and whine and thirst after e-thots instead of just answering the complaint.

That's not particularly relevant to the law here, but the Court's first impression of Rackets is that he's just a whiny asshole.

If played right, this is like what happened in Greer v. AGT, where AGT got into the record all of Greer's past failed lolsuits. None of it was particularly relevant, but it did make him look like a sex pest and nobody likes a sex pest. Similarly, showing Rackets doing fuck all to actually answer this lolsuit makes him look like a blustering buffoon. Nobody likes a blustering buffoon.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Rackets is going to have to make a showing of all four Finden factors:

1. Reasonable excuse
2. Prompt response
3. Defense on the merits
4. Lack of prejudice to the other side for relief of the default.

Rackets can probably make a sufficient showing on all four to get out of the default. But, if Plaintiff is thinking strategically, his lawyer can make Rackets look like a drunk dumbfuck who decided to stream and drink and whine and thirst after e-thots instead of just answering the complaint.

That's not particularly relevant to the law here, but the Court's first impression of Rackets is that he's just a whiny asshole.

If played right, this is like what happened in Greer v. AGT, where AGT got into the record all of Greer's past failed lolsuits. None of it was particularly relevant, but it did make him look like a sex pest and nobody likes a sex pest. Similarly, showing Rackets doing fuck all to actually answer this lolsuit makes him look like a blustering buffoon. Nobody likes a blustering buffoon.

I mean, "defendant promptly tried to get in contact with us and engage in good-faith negotiations, and instead we ignored him and filed for default judgement" isn't exactly a good look either.

Kinda just looks like they're trying to get the drop on a pro se defendant.

And for what? As you said, they're not winning on the default judgement.

 

[mailfrawd]

Lets face it, all of the other sexual taboos have been decriminalized now. You've only got fucking your own children and fucking someone else's children left that's regulated by the criminal law. And because that's so taboo, you really never hear libertarians talking about it as a motivation. Maybe Amos Yee, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone else making this case.

I get your point, but bestiality is still illegal and actively prosecuted in most states.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

lol "compromise my principles" The principles of posting lewds on the Internet! Christ Nick, stop being so melodramatic. There is a huge difference between banning everyone and just simply NOT encouraging something.

I understand entirely the ethos behind Nick's free speech on the Internet mindset.

But here's where Rekieta is acting retarded. Free speech on the Internet means if crusty women want to post nudes, that they should be able to on an appropriate site that allows that content. Free speech on the Internet does not mean that if crusty women want to post nudes, that they should be able to do so on any platform.

It's not a renunciation of your "principles" to ban people thirstposting their nudes, it's just acknowledgement that your platform is not the appropriate place to do so and that they are perfectly free to do that elsewhere. When Rekieta gets ProJared'd, appealing to the principle of free speech on the Internet isn't going to mean much. Sad!

 

[Retink Retunk]

You get a gold medal for mental gymnastics. I think all these people deserve capital punishment and you can quote me on that. Im not gonna pretend pedophiles and child abusers do not deserve death to protect me internet income.

I was one of the people on Nick's side on that one, and I have a bit of a different take on it. The reason I think Nick was being so obtuse about it, is because if you give leftists an inch they will take a mile, so he has to be very strict in his phrasing to preserve intent. They were trying to paint it as a threat, when any normal person can understand that the intent is that it's a phrase meant to convey how awful you believe a group is and how they should be dealt by authorities, but if you phrase it in the "and shot" manner, then you will have a swarm of people reporting you not only to youtube and twitter, but also to every place you may wish to work, including the bar association, which they still did but at least he has deniability.

I get where you're coming from, and if it was just for some Internet account, sure, but to go into a game you know is rigged and to play like it's not rigged is foolish.

 

[Psyduck]

Something sad about kiwis coping how they hope he "recovers", how "the old Nick would laugh at the current one!" And etc, when the dude literally came out and squeaked "this is how ive always been", and proceeds to seethe about the same farms that want him to return to form

 

[Not Who You Think]

So… yeah, politics. Uh, how about those weird fucking faces Kayla pulled in the Godwinson video? He slowed her way down and it was hilarious. She has one of those really… what’s the word… idk her face moves a lot when she talks, also she pulls ugly faces for emphasis which makes it easy to get a funny screen grab.

I was feeling kinda guilty about calling her a bird of prey, she has her moments of being bug-eyed and bird-like but hey, let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that. Then after watching Godwinson’s video I felt a visceral disgust for her. But I still felt a little bad for criticizing her appearance which is clearly her basis for her self esteem. She’s not fat so she probably does work super hard to keep her body. She just needs therapy instead of MDMA and swinging.

It isn't easy to be a good wife to an internet personality, especially someone like Nick. I believe Kayla is trying her best to be a good "internet celebrity" wife by being supportive in ways that seem reasonable to her. All internet personalities share the same lifeblood: content. Kayla seems to recognize this, at least to some degree.

Kayla likely thought that taking Nick to Hedonism II, Nick's big gay birthday, and glow party would be good content in the same way that she imagined her massage "incident" story would be good content. Sort of like how one would think telling their friends how wasted they were night after night would impress them rather than seem like a cry for help. The level of immaturity present in Nick and Kayla is worrying considering their age. It seems they either disregard or haven't achieved meaningful life experiences since their late teens/early twenties.

While the content was there, they all turned out to be hurtful rather than helpful for Nick (although the farms had a good harvest). One can only imagine how this must make Kayla feel in the event she achieves this level of self-awareness.

Ultimately, Kayla is not helpful to Nick's online persona because Kayla is not a good representative of Nick's audience (outside of Locals chat) and therefore not a good sounding board for content. At least, not until she can distinguish between what will hurt/help Nick.

 

[Swole McPole]

I get your point, but bestiality is still illegal and actively prosecuted in most states.

Yes, I have to say I didn't realize animal fucking was a thing until I started reading KiwiFarms. Even in circles where people are out and proud about all manner of kinks (the kind of things that, just twenty years ago, people would kill themselves before being publicly exposed as involved in).

Even among those people, you still don't generally get people owning their desire to shag an animal -- let alone admitting to the actual practice. But even so, surely the numbers can't be so great as to make up the membership of the Libertarian Party -- let alone the much larger number of unaffiliated supporters. My money is still on dope fiends.

 

[Strix454]

Rackets can probably make a sufficient showing on all four to get out of the default. But, if Plaintiff is thinking strategically, his lawyer can make Rackets look like a drunk dumbfuck who decided to stream and drink and whine and thirst after e-thots instead of just answering the complaint.

That's not particularly relevant to the law here, but the Court's first impression of Rackets is that he's just a whiny asshole.

A couple of other things to note. This is all happening in a rural area. Its a small legal community and they all know each other. They also know all the judges. The firm on the other side isn't stupid, incompetent or inexperienced. Whatever they are doing, they are doing for a calculated reason.

The guy on the other side is 28 years in the law, he is well-known in the state and he is not a strip mall lawyer by any means. Nick should think carefully about why a guy like that would even take a case like this. He also might want to re-think talking shit about that guy on the internet.

 

[sum ting wong]

It isn't easy to be a good wife to an internet personality, especially someone like Nick. I believe Kayla is trying her best to be a good "internet celebrity" wife by being supportive in ways that seem reasonable to her. All internet personalities share the same lifeblood: content. Kayla seems to recognize this, at least to some degree.

Kayla likely thought that taking Nick to Hedonism II, Nick's big gay birthday, and glow party would be good content in the same way that she imagined her massage "incident" story would be good content. Sort of like how one would think telling their friends how wasted they were night after night would impress them rather than seem like a cry for help. The level of immaturity present in Nick and Kayla is worrying considering their age. It seems they either disregard or haven't achieved meaningful life experiences since their late teens/early twenties.

While the content was there, they all turned out to be hurtful rather than helpful for Nick (although the farms had a good harvest). One can only imagine how this must make Kayla feel in the event she achieves this level of self-awareness.

Ultimately, Kayla is not helpful to Nick's online persona because Kayla is not a good representative of Nick's audience (outside of Locals chat) and therefore not a good sounding board for content. At least, not until she can distinguish between what will hurt/help Nick.

The best thing an "internet celebrity" wife/husband can do is stay the fuck out of the content. Nobody is there for you and you immediately change the content when you are there, so just don't be there.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I mean, "defendant promptly tried to get in contact with us and engage in good-faith negotiations, and instead we ignored him and filed for default judgement" isn't exactly a good look either.

Kinda just looks like they're trying to get the drop on a pro se defendant.

And for what? As you said, they're not winning on the default judgement.

Follow up to this, I think Nick's right in his suspicion that they've got some arrangement where monty paid them up front for some pre-arranged stuff and if this gets past the initial stages they'll re-negotiate his retainer agreement.

I think they've probably told him that they could pull these shenanigans of pocket service followed by stonewalling then filing a surprise motion for default, and if (when) that fails, he'll have to put more coins in the meter to get any further action out of them.