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: 64 20.1%
  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.3%
  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 86 27.0%
  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 51 16.0%
  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 113 35.5%

  • Total voters
    318
Look, I don’t even want Nick to do lawsplaining 100% of the time. You know what I’d like to see, as a four year long viewer of his? A debate with this guy. Maybe this’ll shake him up.

This is what Nick doesn't seem to get. He likes to claim his old viewers were holding him down with boring law stuff but they loved all the Drex shows. Instead of branching out more in to generic entertainment, which he always has done, he went full coomer and Ben Shapiro republican topics. I am far more anti-coomer topics because it is paired up with such shitty political coverage. You end up with him reading articles for hours with gross sex talk mixed in.
 
Youtube has always maintained that reports are anonymous. If that's not the case I would have expected screeching which can be heard from orbit.
Unless I see a screenshot showing otherwise, my money's that it said something about his comment on Rekieta Law's video getting removed, and he misread it. Although I didn't even think it'd give that much information, usually people have to go trawling through their recent comments to figure out what got removed.
 
I guess nobody here cares about the Crowder contract drama Nick is going over, and I haven't seen the Crowder/DW back-and-forth for myself, but it appears to me at a glance of tonight's stream that Nick is impulsively playing defense force for Crowder throwing a public bitch fit over basic contract negotiations. Sounds more like clueless bias rather than expertise.
I think Crowder's manager is a giant bitch faggot and should be fired, that's what I get from the Crowder v DW shit.
 
This is what Nick doesn't seem to get. He likes to claim his old viewers were holding him down with boring law stuff but they loved all the Drex shows. Instead of branching out more in to generic entertainment, which he always has done, he went full coomer and Ben Shapiro republican topics. I am far more anti-coomer topics because it is paired up with such shitty political coverage. You end up with him reading articles for hours with gross sex talk mixed in.
Some of my favorite shows were some of the “degenerate“ ones - especially diaper guy. Who, of course definitely was not a a furry because he isn’t THAT degenerate. Those were awesome.

I think the Chris stream was the ideal (late night) Rekieta show - law, horror, entertainment, more horror, justified alcohol consumption, musings on pop culture. The Rittenhouse coverage I enjoyed thoroughly. Some daytime self-censoring, but with some spice, like Nick belting out “Photograph” during the autopsy photos.

I can’t keep trawling for GPWS callouts, man. I’m going to have to start posting black box recordings.
 
Hypothetically you could actually set up a camera on the roof of your house to record everything that happens through your neighbor's window if you wanted.
Ehh... I think you'd potentially get into trouble if you put a camera somewhere that it'll be able to film stuff that's not visible to an ordinary passers-by. There's a reasonable expectation that people aren't using telescopes from airplanes to pry into your business.

But if literally anyone can walk by and see it, yeah, that's public. Registering a Locals account and joining someone's community just takes an email address. That's not "private."
I will never forget Drex on one of Legal Mindset's streams saying that if your girl ever asks if you would rather have a threesome with another girl or another guy, you should always say "another guy" and then invite your friends to mercilessly gangbang her. I was shocked he didn't get any pushback, in fact he got a lot of encouragement. He went hard on this weird idea that having a bunch of your pals gangbang your girlfriend/wife is an alpha male move.

IMO, that's some severely faggot shit, but I guess it makes sense to him, considering Drex claims he used to rub balls with other niggers in gangbangs and doesn't think much of it.
Nah, he's right about that. That question is a shit test. If you say another woman, you'll forever owe her, but Drex's answer reflects that shit test right back on her. Her response at that point should be that it was a hypothetical question... if she actually agrees and goes through with it, she's no longer "your girl." You should be peacing out of that "relationship."

If you wanna invite another dude to come over and eiffel tower the ho, though, that's up to you. You can call that gay if you want, I'm not judging one way or the other. Main point should be that you end the relationship either way. She can be a ho with or without you, just don't marry yourself into it. And don't catch anything that a round of antibiotics won't take care of.
2023-01-18_17-33_1.png
I kinda wondered about that from the TOS - it specifically calls out "genitalia" and doesn't have anything at all that indicate nipples are included, nor anything indicating whether there's an exception for male nipples; it does have an exception for breastfeeding, though, which would be odd if nipples are normally gonna be okay.
 
Around 12 minutes in to the show last night, he read a Superchat about a missing 5 year old. He followed this with, "If you are a praying person, please pray for the safety of that little boy." For some reason, this really jumped out at me. He used to tell people that he would personally be praying for the subject of the Superchat. I have never heard him delegate that sort of thing to the audience. I don't know, just an observation.
I've heard him say it in that way recently, but I'd have to go to other toasts streams to determine if/when there was a change
 
Nah, he's right about that. That question is a shit test. If you say another woman, you'll forever owe her, but Drex's answer reflects that shit test right back on her. Her response at that point should be that it was a hypothetical question... if she actually agrees and goes through with it, she's no longer "your girl." You should be peacing out of that "relationship."
Probably should be peacing out just because the question was asked in the first place.
 
"If they- *laugh* my contract is not that much to make missing a show for $100k worth it, that would be an impossibility for me, that wouldn't work." Is he saying that the deal was worth less than $100k here? I think he is. At least, it's in the ballpark.
$100k is several orders of magnitude higher than his nightly take in Rumble rants, and Rumble's cut would be a fraction of that. A $100k penalty for missing a show when he's guaranteed them 13 shows per month or ~150 shows over the course of a year would be insane.

Just looking at the numbers like that, $100k for a year's worth of streaming could very well be in the right ballpark.
Probably should be peacing out just because the question was asked in the first place.
I wouldn't go quite that far. If the question is dropped and never spoken of again, that's probably fine.
 
I kinda wondered about that from the TOS - it specifically calls out "genitalia" and doesn't have anything at all that indicate nipples are included, nor anything indicating whether there's an exception for male nipples; it does have an exception for breastfeeding, though, which would be odd if nipples are normally gonna be okay.
I wonder how this all flies with the TOS clearly stating you only need to be 13+ to access the site. AFAIK Nick got no special cutout to have a 18+ space and locals would be moronic to do such a thing. Even if nick segregates the coomer content to it's own chat that brings up all sorts of other headaches. How is Nick verifying all his members are of age to see said chat? He may point to sites like twitter and instagram for having the 13yr+ rule while having similar content but those sites don't have the label of alt-right hate site.

The TOS his page links clearly states 13yr+.
 
$100k is several orders of magnitude higher than his nightly take in Rumble rants, and Rumble's cut would be a fraction of that. A $100k penalty for missing a show when he's guaranteed them 13 shows per month or ~150 shows over the course of a year would be insane.

Just looking at the numbers like that, $100k for a year's worth of streaming could very well be in the right ballpark.

I wouldn't go quite that far. If the question is dropped and never spoken of again, that's probably fine.
After the DW response to those parts of the contract I can see how that makes some sort of sense as an initial offering with the Crowder deal. I really don't understand if his manager is a fucking idiot that thought no negotiations would happen or what happened.

I wonder how Racket's Rumble deal looks like.
 
I wonder how this all flies with the TOS clearly stating you only need to be 13+ to access the site. AFAIK Nick got no special cutout to have a 18+ space and locals would be moronic to do such a thing. Even if nick segregates the coomer content to it's own chat that brings up all sorts of other headaches. How is Nick verifying all his members are of age to see said chat? He may point to sites like twitter and instagram for having the 13yr+ rule while having similar content but those sites don't have the label of alt-right hate site.

The TOS his page links clearly states 13yr+.
As long as everything's "not pornography" it doesn't really matter if it's coomer content. It doesn't have to be age-restricted or anything.

Dunno how exactly "artistic nudity" plays into that when it comes to nipples, but the TOS doesn't expressly prohibit them.
 
what happened with kyle rittenhouse interview? I remember Nick saying they would do it early Jan.

It's been postponed to Jan 24 There's a twitter screenshot not too far back in the thread from Nick

Also, Seems the Kyle interview is happening the 24th:
View attachment 4288728
Isn’t it strange though that the Rittenhouse announcement was in a reply made to someone asking & there hasn’t been any stand alone tweet or community page announcement or anything on it? Unless I missed it but I’m not seeing anything. Haven’t listened to shows lately to know if he’s said anything on stream.
 
I guess nobody here cares about the Crowder contract drama Nick is going over, and I haven't seen the Crowder/DW back-and-forth for myself, but it appears to me at a glance of tonight's stream that Nick is impulsively playing defense force for Crowder throwing a public bitch fit over basic contract negotiations. Sounds more like clueless bias rather than expertise.
I will say right off the bat that while I like Crowder's takes and research on a lot of political topics, he is very far up his own ass and definitely not as hilarious as he thinks he is... And his skits are capital-C cringe. Anyway, I listened to Crowder's initial response about the contract, followed by Nick's coverage of Jeremy Boreing's response, and I'm siding with Nick on this, for the most part, regarding his take to Boreing's response.

Boreing kept on saying he is friends with Crowder, but then sends an offer sheet that he would send to a relative nobody like Shapiro's Zoomer lookalike -- that would be insulting right off the bat from such a longtime "friend". And if you know he's going to have a huge problem with the penalties regarding demonetization, which you say you'd negotiate out immediately, then why put it in there in the first place, other than to hope he doesn't notice so that you can screw him with those? Crowder is arguably bigger than anyone at the Daily Wire, and has a loyal audience, which would most likely give a decent initial return on investment. You're going to own everything he does while working for you, but you want him to bear the production costs and a healthy amount of the risk, while hoping to penalize him for things you know will come to fruition to mitigate the risk you're purchasing? I would tell them to start over, as well. Boreing also kept on going back to the investment they would have to make to support Crowder, but a lot of what he was pointing to (infrastructure, marketing staff, social media management) already exists at the company, or most of the heavy lifting is done by other services (YouTube, Facebook, Rumble, etc, etc.). Why harp on it like you have to hire a thousand more employees just to handle Crowder's addition to your lineup? He started to sound like a communist by the 100th time he harped on having to share the pain if he Crowder fails. No, Jeremy, you buy the risk with the hope of great profit from a very desirable pickup. Crowder's there to deliver his audience, and it's not his risk once you purchase the show.

As for going all dramatic, acting like he's the last bastion of true conservatism, and dramatically calling The Daily Wire crew big tech enforcers? Calm down there, Stevie boy. The Daily Wire are definitely elitist institutionalists looking to make a buck off the regular folk they look down upon, but they're not that sinister. With that said, the language Boreing was using about being allies and fighting for "the cause" -- that sounded cultlike and creepy. Would I air this laundry publicly like Crowder did? While he didn't say who the offer sheet was from (The Daily Wire outed themselves), it does come off as a bit attention-whorey, but that's on-brand for him.

Bringing this back to Nick, I did find it funny when he tried to compare it to his Rumble and Locals contracts, but it's the only frame of reference he has about this sort of thing. Obviously, the money Crowder and The Daily Wire are playing with is nowhere near what Nick was negotiating for, so the expectations are going quite different as it pertains to freedoms and whatnot. To be fair to Nick, he did acknowledge that they're not on the same playing field, but then he kept on saying how his contract had pretty much no expectations or ownership, as long as he delivers a certain amount of shows, which is super awesome. Ya don't say! As was already mentioned, the amount Crowder could lose from being penalized is probably more than what Nick's whole contract is worth, so they're not even on the same planet with this stuff.
 
Isn’t it strange though that the Rittenhouse announcement was in a reply made to someone asking & there hasn’t been any stand alone tweet or community page announcement or anything on it? Unless I missed it but I’m not seeing anything. Haven’t listened to shows lately to know if he’s said anything on stream.
I think he announced it in Tuesday night's stream but I can't say for certain if it was in response to a superchat or no.
 
Looking at his twitter to see if he mentioned Rittenhouse directly i stumbled on this retweet:
firefox_nmnA9jPU52.png

It doesn't seem as retarded as i expected something from Dax to be and uses ipfs for something useful. I still wouldn't trust him with my crypto wallet.
 
Around 12 minutes in to the show last night, he read a Superchat about a missing 5 year old. He followed this with, "If you are a praying person, please pray for the safety of that little boy." For some reason, this really jumped out at me. He used to tell people that he would personally be praying for the subject of the Superchat. I have never heard him delegate that sort of thing to the audience. I don't know, just an observation.
He's used the phrasing "If you are a praying person, please pray for X" before. I remember some time last week he responded to a prayer request that he would make a prayer after the stream in private too. Something to keep an eye out for, but I wouldn't ascribe too much to it yet.

I think he announced it in Tuesday night's stream but I can't say for certain if it was in response to a superchat or no.
It wasn't prompted by a super chat and he mentioned it again as part of his announcements last night.

I guess nobody here cares about the Crowder contract drama Nick is going over, and I haven't seen the Crowder/DW back-and-forth for myself, but it appears to me at a glance of tonight's stream that Nick is impulsively playing defense force for Crowder throwing a public bitch fit over basic contract negotiations. Sounds more like clueless bias rather than expertise.

With regards to the SC / TDW drama, Jeremy whatshisname didn't come off as believable to me. Specifically every time he would get personal and start waxing poetic about SC being a friend and that he's "miserable" for having to make the video the camera angle changed so his face was at an angle to the camera and less confrontational. It felt so produced that I just assume it's all damage control for exposing that they made a shit first offer to Crowder.

Crowder's emotions seemed real like he was just coming off a shitty relationship with the Blaze to have what he viewed as a bullshit/predatory offer thrown in his face by the Daily Wire. The Daily Wire is coming off like they're defending souless, corporate standardized business practices and offended that they were criticized at all for it.
 
He's used the phrasing "If you are a praying person, please pray for X" before. I remember some time last week he responded to a prayer request that he would make a prayer after the stream in private too. Something to keep an eye out for, but I wouldn't ascribe too much to it yet.


It wasn't prompted by a super chat and he mentioned it again as part of his announcements last night.



With regards to the SC / TDW drama, Jeremy whatshisname didn't come off as believable to me. Specifically every time he would get personal and start waxing poetic about SC being a friend and that he's "miserable" for having to make the video the camera angle changed so his face was at an angle to the camera and less confrontational. It felt so produced that I just assume it's all damage control for exposing that they made a shit first offer to Crowder.

Crowder's emotions seemed real like he was just coming off a shitty relationship with the Blaze to have what he viewed as a bullshit/predatory offer thrown in his face by the Daily Wire. The Daily Wire is coming off like they're defending souless, corporate standardized business practices and offended that they were criticized at all for it.
Yeah, my opinion of DW is that it might be their typical contract stuff, but I would never sign it. Knowing that if I said something that demonetized me on YouTube (which could be literally anywhere nowadays) they would start cutting my paychecks but reap the benefit of me having brought in yearly subscriptions
 
Still wild to me that even with years of videos + streams of him being/playing the traditional family man (tradmasking? TRADFACE?) and people clipping them to compare with his statements now, demonstrating his 180 change and hypocrisy, that he just can not take the ego blow of going "yes I've changed, I'm more [positive spin on sex pest]".

He just has to quadruple-down on this "I'm the same as I've always been, my audience is changing but I don't change for my audience since I'm the same but the show is shifting but it's the same also it feels so good to be FREE I was so tired of always doing and being what people say and now I'm FREE but still the same" shit like nig get your shit in order, please.
Try looking at this a different way and see if it fits:

Nick admits to being a sex pervert (claims he always has been). Nick is the one who defended his degeneracy, and he still does. The problem area is not admitting to his degeneracy. The problem is that Nick needs to comes to terms with is the fact that he marketed himself as a more traditional/moral person to appeal to that audience for personal gain. This is what seems to trigger him the most.

Basically, he can't bring himself to admit to ever promoting the image of being a "good" person/prude. That image is what he rails against to this day. The hypocrisy lies in pretending to be a good/caring for personal gain. He took advantage of people's principles and pretended to care, all for money (this is what grifting is). Remember, he did this during a time when America was in political/social/cultural turmoil and he was appealing to an audience looking for stability. Nick was a boring person himself (even his mid-life crisis is nothing special) but that's what a lot of people were in the mood for at the time and why they would go to a Youtube show about the law, of all things, for entertainment. He read the room and pandered for personal gain.

This is arguably worse than being a good person and then falling into degeneracy, which would at least be more honest, but still pretty sad.

Nick knows this and instead opts for having always been the mature, worldly-wise, hedonist who is above the internet drama, which he finds "gay and boring". No hypocrisy. No lies. Just a grift somehow devoid of any deception (despite the very definition of the term). Funny stuff.

Hope this helps.
 
Back