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.

[AnyballLecter]

What are the alleged defamatory statements in this lawsuit?

 

[theworstkindofeurofag]

My theory about them is that they're both degenerates and we should keep making fun of the both of them.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

What are the alleged defamatory statements in this lawsuit?

Go to the lawsuit thread for more details. The opening documents are attachments in the OP.

 

[Swole McPole]

View attachment 4276786

The scales should be replaced with two lots of Balldo encased testicles.

 

[mailfrawd]

IMO, if you want good legal commentary from someone on “the right” that is honest and earnest, Robert Gouveia is a great channel to check out.

I've been watching Robert for a couple weeks now along with Viva/Barnes for current happenings. Much more reliable than Rackets, and without the degenerate retardedness we've all come to expect from Rekieta. His grift is consistent and devoid of any weird sex toy shilling. My only feedback is that Robert should try and book guests to get another perspective from time to time but I realize that's incredibly difficult to organize.

Shit doesn’t add up at outside glance. I wish I took screenshots, but there were comments just saying (paraphrasing) “why is the comment count so low?” that got kicked.

LM is dickride or die. Like I said. He rides Nick’s coattails so fucking hard he even made Nick’s childhood friend one of his streaming buddies.

All MGTOW and PUA are either outright faggots, faggot adjacent, cucks and/or incel retards. Literally every single one of these Rico Sauve retard niggers.

It's pretty obvious his engagement has dropped off a cliff. I wonder how long until his handlers at Rumble start asking questions and digging? Nevertheless, I've taken all these retards (RL, MGTOW, LM mostly) off subscribe and told YT to stop recommending them. It's been kind of nice, honestly.

 

[huecoffs02]

Spoiler: “sick and terrible shit”

Go ahead and google (remember to always refer to web searches as “googling” or “to google” to erode their trademark) “man rapes puppy” and you will see multiple cases around the world every year. If you want to get even more fucked up shit, look up rape of infants. It’s more often than you might think and it fairly often involves perps literally fucking the infant to death.

It glows

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

I've been watching the chat and I really think art has lolcow potential. Every minor offence in that chat seems to live rent free in his head. I'm expecting big things from him in the future.

Artthecuck one of my favorites too. When he isn't simping, he's in full tardrage mode at those damn dirty trolls leaking the chat out of context. Isn't he in his 60s and his wife (can't remember her username) is in her 40s? Or am I getting them confused with Sally and her husband?

These people are incredibly sad. They seem like they all have very low self-esteem and have very fragile identities. They probably watch Nick because it let's them feel like they're hanging with the cool kid like they never could back in the high school. If they were younger they'd probably all be troons and genderspecials.

 

[AnyballLecter]

Go to the lawsuit thread for more details. The opening documents are attachments in the OP.

That is more helpful than saying "Fuck off," but only slightly more helpful. There are six PDFs at the bottom of the OP and you can't see the full filenames without downloading them. I think this is the only relevant part.

The only quote of Rekieta in the complaint is "should probably be shot in the fucking head."

The rest is characterising things Rekieta has said. In particular it is very coy about the sexual predation accusations.

Is that a proper defamation complaint - shouldn't they include specific transcripts as evidence, or does that only come later in a hearing?

This seems to be the meat of it:
MCRO_34-CV-23-12_Summons and Complaint_2023-01-11_20230112153559.pdf

VI.
On October 6, 2022, Defendant Nicholas Rekieta was a guest on a livestreamed
program called Megan Fox Investigates for an interview about why Defendant Nicholas
Rekieta was banned from Youtube. During this livestream, Defendant Nicholas Rekieta
made various false statements of a sexual nature about Plaintiff.

VII.
On October 13, 2022, Defendants published a video in which another lawyer
named Andrew d'Adesky (also known as Legal Mindset) appeared as a guest. During
this published video, Defendant Nicholas Rekieta accused Plaintiff of disgusting crimes
against children, pedophilia, then, stated Plaintiff " should probably be shot in the
fucking head."

VIII.
On October 18, 2022, Defendants published a video with several guests who
were named as lawyers, Steven Gosney, Sean Martin, and Kurt Mueller serving as a
panel, where a meme of guns (AK47s) pointed at Plaintiff's head accompanied by
Defendant Nicholas Rekieta making false statements about Plaintiff.

 

[huecoffs02]

Artthecuck one of my favorites too. When he isn't simping, he's in full tardrage mode at those damn dirty trolls leaking the chat out of context. Isn't he in his 60s and his wife (can't remember her username) is in her 40s? Or am I getting them confused with Sally and her husband?

These people are incredibly sad. They seem like they all have very low self-esteem and have very fragile identities. They probably watch Nick because it let's them feel like they're hanging with the cool kid like they never could back in the high school. If they were younger they'd probably all be troons and genderspecials.

Whoever wants to publicly brag about being a cuck for strangers on the internet is functionally retarded. Even if you were a cuck, you stfu about it. But for some reason this guy is happy to continue letting everyone know how much of a great dude he is because of the cucking.

 

[Kopasea]

Artthecuck one of my favorites too. When he isn't simping, he's in full tardrage mode at those damn dirty trolls leaking the chat out of context. Isn't he in his 60s and his wife (can't remember her username) is in her 40s? Or am I getting them confused with Sally and her husband?

These people are incredibly sad. They seem like they all have very low self-esteem and have very fragile identities. They probably watch Nick because it let's them feel like they're hanging with the cool kid like they never could back in the high school. If they were younger they'd probably all be troons and genderspecials.

You're thinking of Sally and her husband. Art is married to EgalitarianBitch (who is also much younger than him from what I'm able to tell).
Art is very strange to me because he "allegedly" has Nick's phone number and has claimed to work with Nick in the past before Nick went to law school. Nick definitely seems to have an affinity with the collection of people he hangs around with. Drex is the bull that helps arrange swinger orgies. Camelot seems to be a coomer. Art cucks himself by posting his wife's lewds on Nick's locals chat. Now that Nick isn't going to church anymore, you have to wonder what kind of affect these people have on his mentality.

 

[talk talk talk]

That is more helpful than saying "Fuck off," but only slightly more helpful. There are six PDFs at the bottom of the OP and you can't see the full filenames without downloading them. I think this is the only relevant part.

The only quote of Rekieta in the complaint is "should probably be shot in the fucking head."

The rest is characterising things Rekieta has said. In particular it is very coy about the sexual predation accusations.

Is that a proper defamation complaint - shouldn't they include specific transcripts as evidence, or does that only come later in a hearing?

This seems to be the meat of it:
MCRO_34-CV-23-12_Summons and Complaint_2023-01-11_20230112153559.pdf

There is a little more in the affidavit Monty's lawyer filed for the default:



He also says he uploaded videos to the court's exhibit system. Unfortunately, that is a limited cloud system that only allows access by the filing party and court personnel--neither Rackets nor us can see what was uploaded. Schneider should have served the videos on Rackets, but we don't know if he did.

 

[Kosher Salt]

That is more helpful than saying "Fuck off," but only slightly more helpful. There are six PDFs at the bottom of the OP and you can't see the full filenames without downloading them. I think this is the only relevant part.

The only quote of Rekieta in the complaint is "should probably be shot in the fucking head."

The rest is characterising things Rekieta has said. In particular it is very coy about the sexual predation accusations.

Is that a proper defamation complaint - shouldn't they include specific transcripts as evidence, or does that only come later in a hearing?

This seems to be the meat of it:
MCRO_34-CV-23-12_Summons and Complaint_2023-01-11_20230112153559.pdf

According to Nick defamation has to be pled with specificity. General statements about what they claim Nick said wouldn't meet the specificity requirement.

There is a little more in the affidavit Monty's lawyer filed for the default:

View attachment 4277461

He also says he uploaded videos to the court's exhibit system. Unfortunately, that is a limited cloud system that only allows access by the filing party and court personnel--neither Rackets nor us can see what was uploaded. Schneider should have served the videos on Rackets, but we don't know if he did.

I'd question (a) whether these videos are edited in such a way that they clearly identify specific statements that are alleged to be defamatory and (b) if they're not part of the public record, whether they can even repair the deficiency in the pleadings which are part of the public record.

If we can't even know specifically what the allegedly defamatory comments are, they shouldn't be considered.

 

[Swole McPole]

If we can't even know specifically what the allegedly defamatory comments are, they shouldn't be considered.

Monty's lawyer claims to have uploaded video of Nick claiming that Monty "has always been into sucking little boys cocks." If that's true, surely that meets the bar for sufficiently defamatory and specific?

Am I missing something? Is Rackets claiming he didn't say such a thing? Or is he going for truth as a defence here?

 

[AnyballLecter]

Yes, this is what I expected to see in the complaint, or something like "refer to exhibit B, timestamp XX:YY ... where the defendent said the plaintiff is a big do-do head ...."

There is a little more in the affidavit Monty's lawyer filed for the default:



He also says he uploaded videos to the court's exhibit system. Unfortunately, that is a limited cloud system that only allows access by the filing party and court personnel--neither Rackets nor us can see what was uploaded. Schneider should have served the videos on Rackets, but we don't know if he did.

So is the lawyer leaving out the actual meat of the complaint out of the fucking complaint, and only explaining his case properly when filing for default crazy? Or crazy like a fox? In other word is it a shady trick or just sloppiness?

---

On a different note, also from the Montagraph complaint against Rekieta:

XVI.​

The course of Defendants' wrongful conduct was so extreme and outrageous that it​

goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized society​

and within the State of Minnesota.​

​

Isn't that more or less what the opinion of this thread has become where Nick Rekieta is concerned?

 

[Balldo]

A lot of people in the Lawtube community would be bias towards Rekieta.

Nice Russell Greer reference! Well done, sir.

 

[Swole McPole]

Yes, this is what I expected to see in the complaint, or something like "refer to exhibit B, timestamp XX:YY ... where the defendent said the plaintiff is a big do-do head ...."

So is the lawyer leaving out the actual meat of the complaint out of the fucking complaint, and only explaining his case properly when filing for default crazy? Or crazy like a fox? In other word is it a shady trick or just sloppiness?

Rekeita has gone on and on about how these are just small town lawyers who don't have a defamation practice -- they're the guys you hire to do your real estate transfer, or plead you out when you catch a DUI. Errors in their filings would seem inevitable.

I'm married to a lawyer (now retired). Not only would she not practice in an area that wasn't her area of expertise -- she wouldn't even give informal advice to friends on those issues, insisting that they see somebody who was actually practicing in those fields. Her argument was that the law was so complex and changed so fast that she'd be at best doing them a disservice -- at worst, she might be negligent.

That said, my sense was always when you get these small town lawyers practicing in areas that they aren't familiar with, when they screw up due to a lack of familiarity with procedure, you have to work really hard at being an asshole before the judge refuses to allow you to correct your errors.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

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.

Everything in this post is 100% correct.

I will mention, in response to the part I bolded, that Nick was complaining about still being kept in the dark about the status of the investigation into him by the OLPR after two months elapsed. That's another example of this phenomenon, I think.

I think if he technically defaults but this turns out to be the case, not only will it be set aside on motion, but Monty (and his douchebag lawyer) will have earned the dislike of the court even more than it already dislikes Nick (if that is even true).

I don't really blame Monty's lawyers for ghosting Nick. This case is about Nick's streaming about Monty. As such, it makes sense that his attorneys may have seen the stream where Nick explicitly says that a) he had reached an agreement to retain Marc Randazza to represent him in the case, b) that he was imminently paying the retainer fee, and c) he would be "an idiot" to represent himself.

If Monty's lawyers see that, what exactly are they supposed to do when Nick rocks up to their office and demands to discuss the case? He very publicly and explicitly stated he was not representing himself and would not be doing that under any circumstances. Assuming they're aware of that information, I don't blame them for waiting for this to get in front of a judge before discussing anything with a defendant who may or may not be represented by counsel.

 

[bifftango]

This particular court's first impression of Nick happened some time ago. Jennifer Fischer is the same judge before whom he unsuccessfully defended a case a couple years ago (Case No. 34-CR-19-1198, searchable here). Some woman was accused of felony theft by swindle. Nick says the judge threw the book at her, ranting angrily about how if she can afford a lawyer, she can afford to return what she's stolen (which amounted to $386212.74). Afterwards, Nick, being the asshole who just has to get the last word in, informed the judge (literally in an elevator, if memory serves) that he was doing everything pro bono. As Nick told the story, he wasn't nice about it.

So the court's impression of Nick might very well be "a total prick" already.

Imagine. Nick just got his client locked up for 4 years, not to mention the restitution. The judged screamed at him and his client. Meanwhile, his YouTube channel is taking off. He's been thinking of basically retiring from law for years now, and now he finally has the ability to do so. The Rittenhouse trial is just 1 week away, and he's covering it. Knowing what Nick's like, does he:

• take the L, going home quietly;​

• tell the judge off, thinking that he'll never see her again?​

This isn't really a question, he told us what he did.

And now, 1.5 years later, some watermelon fucker is dragging him before that same judge as the defendant. That must chafe his balls worse than the balldo.

I read the case filing and a local news story about it, and I'm kind of with the judge on this one. This woman ruined a whole family's life, along with putting their employees out of work, due to her thievery, which was around $500,000 in crane bucks. While I like the tactic of her pleading guilty to a few counts so that she can stay out of prison and work to pay back the restitution, this chick has already proven that she knows how to cook the books -- she would always claim that she can't pay anything back while walking fancy free. With this in mind, I completely understand the judge throwing the book at this hambeast for ruining multiple lives. Nick did what he could, but she had it coming, and the judge was pissed about the destruction left behind.

I probably wouldn't recommend Nick giving the judge a piece of his mind, but he saw it as backing his client up, and he thinks he's the smartest person in any room, so that's the kind of outburst that is very on-brand for him. I'm sure his magic starfish puckered up nice and tight when he saw her name as the judge on this lawsuit, though.

 

[Strix454]

So is the lawyer leaving out the actual meat of the complaint out of the fucking complaint, and only explaining his case properly when filing for default crazy? Or crazy like a fox? In other word is it a shady trick or just sloppiness?

Its something that seems to be happening more often. The judges allow the plaintiff to get away with being incredibly vague in their initial complaint in these kind of cases and then they (the plaintiff's representation) fill in the details as the process goes on. Going for an immediate default with a half-formed complaint seems slightly unusual. But I don't think they expect the default to stand anyway.
The way they got to filing for default was a bunch of what I would call asshole moves (rather than tricks) on their side. But the moves they used wouldn't have worked if Nick had not been so incredibly lazy and if Nick had not been so foolish as to try to do things himself.
The guy on the other side is not crazy or sloppy. I would suspect everything is doing, he is doing for a reason. Maybe not to win the case, but maybe to mess with Nick or bait Nick into one of his trademark drunken rants or just to make his life miserable. It will eventually be up to the judge as far as keeping everyone in line.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

So is the lawyer leaving out the actual meat of the complaint out of the fucking complaint, and only explaining his case properly when filing for default crazy? Or crazy like a fox? In other word is it a shady trick or just sloppiness?

This is what I meant that Montagraph has learned NOTHING from his previous litigious escapades. But, that is a discussion for the lawsuit thread.