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.

[ChromaQuack]

Have you guys noticed Rackets has been sniffing a lot and laughing nervously the last two shows? Whats up with that?

Nothing to see here, it's just boxed wine.

 

[Swole McPole]

I agree with Kurt. I do so quite often. Maybe we have shades of the same 'tism. He hits that nail on the head:

I signed up to the Farms in Dec. 2022. This was the forum that I'd been reading the most. I joined primarily because I was fascinated by Monty vs. Rekieta. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why Rekieta hadn't immediately apologized and made the damn thing go away right at the very outset. It just seemed an unwinnable case and one that would inevitably cost him a shedload of money, without any upside. Even if he won, he'd lose.

When I posted this view back in December, pretty well everybody in this thread was telling me that I was retarded and that there was no way that Monty could prevail. "You're a Britbong," they screeched. "We do things differently over here." Murcan's are allowed to call people a paedo with complete impunity."

There were a tiny number of people who weren't quite so certain. @AnOminous was one of the few who seemed to think it wasn't all quite so cut and dried. I had the impression that there were a couple of posters who seemed to have a grasp of Minnesota Law who also weren't so convinced, but back then, just six short months ago, everybody seemed to think Rekieta had it in the bag. That Monty had no reputation that could be besmirched by calling him a paedophile, and that he'd soon come to regret it.

You have to wonder where all these legal YouTubers were back then. It's easy to call it AFTER the judge has already ruled. Any moron can read out the judges decision and nod sagely about how they agree. Where were these assholes BEFORE the judge had ruled? None of these cunts were anywhere to be found.

Shameless.

 

[Spaded Dave]

"You're a Britbong,"

To be fair to them you ARE a Britbong, with an Italian profile picture. The conversation wasn't about Irish oppression or pasta so they probably just skim-read.

 

[zyclonPD]

I just watched Kurt's analysis on Nick's motion.... TWICE.... and guys.... Kurt isn't buying into the bullshit.
Hear me out.... (I've made it a spoiler to keep the thread clean)

I'm starting to get the impression that Kurt may be regretting his choice to throw his lot in with the lawtube sphere instead of sticking with the liberal Leonard French sphere. Lest we forget that Kurt has a history of networking with Internet lawyers pre-balldo man

I know he's trying to ride the fence slightly by qualifying his statements but at least he's willing to retain a level of honesty and entegrity . I don't know what wrong with the Andrew and legal vices side of the equation. Maybe being pseudo legal consultants overseas who hound for Asian pussy at bars skews your moral compass in weird ways.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Regarding the speeding ticket:

Nick responds

RekietaLaw​

I haven't been around to go pay it. This state is gay and can fucking eat my ass

If he means being "around to go pay it" as in he has to physically go somewhere to pay it he is straight up lying.

The "Late Payment Advisory and Final Demand Notice" mailed to him and dated May 22 clearly states that you can pay online by credit card.



If you don't believe me you can go to MCRO and look it up yourself.

Side note: He was pondering that it seems hypocritical that Rekieta invoked anti-SLAAP after personally saying it's unconstitutional. And was asked, "why don't you ask Nick yourself?" His response, "None of your business. Maybe I should. Go fuck yourself, we don't want you here." What a fucking baby.

What's going on? Did he think that the guy in chat was mad at him for going against Nick?

I didn't watch the whole thing, but Kurt didn't really seem to take Nick's side on any of this. He basically called him a hypocrite, he didn't seem convinced by the "forum shopping" argument, and in general (from what I watched) seemed inclined to agree with the judge's takes.

Dunford's analysis was unironically more favorable to Nick than Kurt's was, in that it was "Nick's fucked, but that's bad".

During the Mignogna case Nick made it a point that one of the graduates of his Law School was former Chief Justice of the SCOTUS Warren Burger.

So he's "humble bragged" about his alma mater before. Clearly, he cares about it on some level.

But really, that's Nick, isn't it? Just like he doesn't care about Kiwi Farms, but then spends 20 minutes telling you how much he doesn't care about Kiwi Farms.

One thing to keep in mind is that both the judge in his case and Monty's attorney are also graduates of William Mitchell. I think he may think he is insulting them by proxy by insulting his alma mater. On the other hand, their existence just shows that people were able to take the legal education they received there and forge a successful legal career.

Rekieta has been extremely aggrieved and mean-spirited about the whole situation ever since the Spectre phone call with Schneider. Beforehand, he seemed more befuddled about why Schneider would take the case. It wouldn't surprise me if he was under the impression he was beloved in the local legal community and was deeply hurt at the claim that at least one attorney was happy to see the back of him when he became a full-time streamer and stopped actively representing clients.

 

[im5!XxhO]

I don't know what wrong with the Andrew and legal vices side of the equation.

I think the case for Legal Vices is pretty simply. I remember him stating a couple of months ago that due to the "strong dollar" his YouTube income was more than his job income. He wants to make money and not rock the boat, especially since a lot of the guys that watch his streams are die hard Nick fans as well.

 

[AnOminous]

It was interesting seeing the whole thing presented. It gave a sense of full consideration, and fleshed put Nick's thoughts. I could agree or disagree, but I felt fully informed.

I liked it because reading legal documents can be deathly dull, so livening it up a little bit with humor made it tolerable as something to do while playing vidya or something else. And a lot of the early ones were the Mystery Law Theater 3000 of legal practice, like the lolsuit and Russhole Greer's suits. It didn't exactly take Perry Mason to see where those were headed.

 

[Strix454]

When I posted this view back in December, pretty well everybody in this thread was telling me that I was retarded and that there was no way that Monty could prevail.

In fairness, Monty's lawsuit would have probably failed if Nick had lived in a different place, the circumstances had been slightly different or Monty had followed a more usual legal strategy in these things. Its kind of a unicorn case because so many different things lined up against Nick. If it had been done the usual way these cases are done over much of the United States, the case would have probably been dismissed. But ironically (for an attorney) it was Nick's personal ignorance of the law that has hurt him the most

- Monty finding an attorney in the rural area where Nick lives was unusual. There is usually a professional solidarity in an area like that which would make it difficult to find an attorney there who would take the case. Monty also has little to no money and filing a lawsuit several states away from where a person lives is usually very expensive.
- By suing Nick where he lives, Monty was able to avoid all the easy jurisdictional paths to the case being dismissed.
- The unusual feature of Minnesota law where pedo is per se defamation also helped immensely. In many other parts of the united states, that advantage doesn't exist.
- Nick's decision to give Monty what in practice was far more information for free about the dispute than Monty could have obtained through a deposition was also rather unique. A normal person would follow the advice not to talk about the facts of the case much less answer the complaint verbally in public. Its almost unimaginable than an attorney like Nick would be so foolish as not to understand how damaging it would be. Nick's decision to talk about the case undermines many of the defenses he would have in the case if Monty is declared a public figure.
- Nick lack of knowledge about the law and his unwillingness to listen to good legal advice also helped the case against him immensely.
- Nick's decision to hire the wrong attorney for the case and to fight the wrong battles within the case (anti-SLAPP) has also helped to move it along. Its not really a first amendment case. Its a case where Monty is inevitably going to be found to have defamed (because of per se) and the case has to be fought over negligence/malice & the amount of potential damages.

As to what Nick should have done, if Nick had properly understood his state's case law or asked the opinion of an experienced attorney in defamation, he would NEVER had said those things about Monty in the first place or dared him to sue. Daring someone to sue you is probably one of those times its worth a talk with an attorney first.

 

[SargonF00t]

Where did the button go? Is there a time limit to edits?

Anyway, here you go. It got clipped by Elissa.

This video is astonishing.

I couldn't believe how little self-awareness he demonstrated as he continued on and on.

He is going to be pissed off when he realises what a fool he has made of himself with this rant.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/uLkvkyBwl9M?wmode=opaque

 

[AnOminous]

Where were these assholes BEFORE the judge had ruled? None of these cunts were anywhere to be found.

Tbh I don't think they wanted to be on Nick's wrong side. He's a spiteful, vindictive asshole much like Ethan Ralph.

- The unusual feature of Minnesota law where pedo is per se defamation also helped immensely. In many other parts of the united states, that advantage doesn't exist.

It's virtually definitive per se defamation in most places, and he actually went on and accused him of sucking little boys' dicks which is a specific crime. Suing him in his own backyard also did away with any opportunity he had for the usual removal to federal court and then he just had to have pissed off the specific judge in charge of his case.

A perfect lesson in why you don't shit where you eat.

It's possible after discovery this will be ripe for an actual summary judgment under real Minnesota law, without trying to graft on a SLAPP statute from a foreign jurisdiction very similar to one the Minnesota Supreme Court already found unconstitutional under their own laws. That could go both ways. We really don't know because we don't know what's going to turn up in discovery.

Dunford's analysis was unironically more favorable to Nick than Kurt's was, in that it was "Nick's fucked, but that's bad".

He's looking at it as someone favorable to SLAPP laws in general. In theory I am as well, but I am not as satisfied with the practical results of such statutes. In Vic's case in particular, largely because of the conduct of counsel on all sides (aside from Sam Johnson), as well as one of the worst judges I've seen in action, instead of quickly disposing of a case without undue expense, the case ended up procedurally beyond all rational levels of complexity for what was in effect a simple case.

This cost all parties much more money and time than necessary.

 

[Spaded Dave]

He is going to be pissed off when he realises what a fool he has made of himself with this rant.

Calling it now, his cope will be "You don't HAVE to watch my show. I don't put it in your face, you come to my channel to see it and if you don't like it fuck off"

Now, you might be tempted to reply that he's basically saying literally the exact thing that the creators of the movies, games, shows, etc that he's bitching about would tell him. But have you considered "Fuck you dad, I'll do what I want?"

 

[waffle]

I used to watch Nick's stream and pretty much all the legal info I can remember I learned from him has turned out to be true, so what's the deal? Is he proficient with his legal knowledge, but he just sucks at execution? OR is the info he gives out during streams just basic bitch shit every law student learns on his first day?

Back when he started out he did mostly stick to safe takes and basic law school stuff. Every lawyer tends to have one or two things that they think everyone else is wrong about but he usually did a good job of signposting when he was doing that.

His current legal analysis is more in the theme of "feels over reals, I'm always right".

 

[Owlbear]

- Nick's decision to give Monty what in practice was far more information for free about the dispute than Monty could have obtained through a deposition was also rather unique. A normal person would follow the advice not to talk about the facts of the case much less answer the complaint verbally in public. Its almost unimaginable than an attorney like Nick would be so foolish as not to understand how damaging it would be. Nick's decision to talk about the case undermines many of the defenses he would have in the case if Monty is declared a public figure.

This has been fascinating to me. Watching a lawyer who should know better decide, "I know the law and I have a public platform to grift, so I should grift my own lawsuit" was crazy. Martha fucking Stewart couldn't grift her court case. Johnny Depp didn't try to grift off his own court case. It never crossed Nick's mind that "muh platform" doesn't mean that you should run your mouth about your own legal issues. It actually usually means the opposite.

Also, Nick's whole theory that he can start playing venue games was nuts to me from the start. Monty picked the one venue where he couldn't play any sort of venue games, and Nick really should have known that.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Nick constantly mis-states or characterises the criticisms of himself. He pretends to address and deboonk it directly, but he is strawman-ing the whole time.

Yep. He thinks it's clever lawyer-style arguing, but as usual, he is incorrect.

It's pretty telling how he felt the need to mention that most of the teachers at his school were losers who sucked.

Right...because he knows so much more than people who have achieved far more than he ever will. I wonder what courses he took.

Nick responds

RekietaLaw​

I haven't been around to go pay it. This state is gay and can fucking eat my ass

Right. Because Minnesota ended postal service, definitely doesn't allow online payment, and absolutely doesn't offer multiple ways to pay fines.

https://www.mncourts.gov/pay-a-fine.aspx

But he's not going to lose his license for not paying a single ticket on time. He's maybe at a $5 or $30 late penalty at this point.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Nick did another call-in show:

Spergery below:

Spoiler: Call-in summaries

I must sneed:

He seemed him out asking 'How he responds to allegations of being an open coomer'. Nick deflects with jokes. He presses on the 2 Instagram follows from Hedo. Nick plays dumb and makes more jokes about black people. He deflects from confirming his vacation destination.

It became very clear that this is someone who is on his side. It honestly felt like something rehearsed... Call me crazy.

Nick doesn't think people can go a month without spanking the money or bean. He loves sex. He used to watch a lot of porn--the implications being he is just a guy who people misunderstand and people have 'gay theories'.

They called out KiwiFarms at the end. They are sure we will spemd 6 pages on it. He also called said him and his wife had never had sex with a black man or woman (NO TRANNIES!, LOL!). He also said that he and his wife were virgins when they met. This contrasts with his story of Trad Christian image of when they were virgins when they got married.

Nick think that most people on the internet have fears that black men will have sex with everyone. He wonders why they are afraid of that... He doesn't want to shame though. A bunch of them are incels, but he regrets using that term. He picots into using Drexel to deboonk the black bull fantasy in the rumours about him.

He says that he did overshare. But his plan was to try to debunk that marriage is a dead-end for sex, ans that backfired. But you cannot control what people will think.

Overall, it seemed like Nick was dodging the issues with jokes. It could just be me, but if you do not give short, direct answers, it comes across as evasive. Is it just me?


Meffistoe:

Nick reiterated his 1A absolutist stance on porn because he started talking about having porn stars on the show.

Meffistoe wanted to have Kayla on to review Star Trek, but she is too troverted and shitcanned her channel.

They ralkes about ajewish lunar calendar and how it relates to the solar calendar.

Mistie:

He is having all his teeth removed at the dentist. This is the guy who was in public radio for many years.

He wanted to ask about where his event was in Nashville. Nixk is waiting for response from his shortlist (provided from a fan) to get a quote and book it.

Phigs:

Another return caller who turned 30 on the day. He asked what he should do. They went back and forth about golf, Dowling, racquetball, pickleball (long tangent)n and a tangent about skating (ice and roller). The caller did not see the dofference. Drinking came up at the end.

ZanderZrantZ:

Starts talking about how dumb most people are. asked if Nick finds it too. Nick responded that most people will just go along and a lot of people were surprised how compliant people were during COVID. He chalked it up to fear being a powerful motivator.

Next asked about 'brining back bullying' and if it is a bad thing. The caller sees themselves as sensitive and cannot believe how offended people can get. Nick thinks it is more of a general 'anti-pussy' or 'anti-feminisation' push more than anything.

Finally finished up with asking about Nick's view on the dating market vs Drex's. Specifically about church girls. Nick said it boils down to hating hypocrisy. He is not in the market, but dating is different when so many people have so many more options. Perhaps people are offended that women are demanding becuase they have more options. People are no longer restricted to finding someone in a small community and different tactics need to be employed with online dating and apps. MeToo has also discouraged dating in school and workplaces.

His take was actually well-reasoned. It put the first response to the first call-in into stark contrast. He developed a logical position though I disagree.


Iceman (Sully):

Starts depressing talking about a lot of funerals. He likes the Direct Examination format.

He nitpickes with Nick's religious take on evangelism. He agrees that not everyone should go out and talk with people about it, but you can be an evangelist by living a good life. If you talk about it up front, you might turn people off.


G:

Joined with horrible audio. He wanted advice for new parents. Nick reiterated, 'walk away from them when you are angry' that he always says. He also said to present a united front wirh your partner to the child. He got kicked for bad audio after this.


Blindeye:

Calling in before. This is the guy who is going blind. He has an issue with how people treat porn. He has an issue with it and sees how destructive it is. He works with youth at church and deals with it in others that is a huge issue. He hates it, but thinks it is legal. He agrees and parrots Nick's talking points.

He struggles with this because he wants to help people and tell them there is a better way to live through a religious life. He seems really sincere. Nick nods along and agrees.


Ann Feinstien:

Another repeat caller. Is Jewish and had to have her say in religion.

She is writing a book about anti-semeric German amazing propaganda with a boss bitch MC who is Jewish.

She agrees that Christians who are not pushy are the best to spend time with.

She wants to get Nick to have someone commentstor on the show. She also wants Nick to go on a friend's show for his YT channel.

She also wants to get a military fiction writer she knows on.

Want to guess they are all Jewish? It is a stereotype for a reason.


Shitbird Militia:

Asked how streamyard interfaces for Rumble. Nick says they do not have an API, but they are making an update to generate static stream keys in the near future.

He wants Nick to improve the platform and thinks they will listen to Nick's criticisms.


Justin:

A trucker that called from his job. Wanted to ask about social media addiction. He has a wife that is really down bad. Wants advice on how to deal with it.

Nick says that they have to want to change for any addiction to be broken. He said be honest and make them see the negative impacts on others. Be honest, and he might have to stay closer to home.

He wants to meet up with Nick and shoot guns.

 

[Captain Manning]

Jesus Christ, Kurt is such a bitch. All he had to say is "This is my first time reading it, I probably will ask him and let you guys know the answer" without the venom. It's not even an aggressive question but Kurt is so ready to be offended by every little thing. That's why I can't watch him. I used to be subscribed because he does give good breakdowns of interesting shit, but he's such a little bitch that it wore on me quickly.

The segment is embarrassing in isolation, yes, but I agree with @JudyGemstone, @Himedall All-seeing Waifu, and @Balldo's Gate that the entire video, in context, demonstrates that Kurt is fully cognizant of Nick's hypocrisy. He's actually critical of Rekieta when it comes to his current legal drama.

The salient issue here is that during the Vic case Rekieta was opposed to the concept of anti-SLAPP. He went so far as to argue that anti-SLAPP is unconstitutional. He hammered that point so hard that... to this very day... there are people in Weebwars who argue Vic needs to take his case all the way to the SCOTUS and have anti-SLAPP struck down as unconstitutional.

Now Nick is sued in a state that AGREES with the notion that anti-SLAPP is unconstitutional, yet is fighting like hell to force an anti-SLAPP regime on said state.

What changed? Nick is now the defendant in a defamation case. That's it. That's all that changed.

Nick doesn't have principles. At least not ones that he's willing to apply to himself equally. His grift is incompatible with such rigidity.

Say what you want about Kurt, but at least he seems to get that much. I am not sure the same can be said about anybody else in Lawtube. Kurt might act like a little bitch at times, but he's at least intellectually honest. I have to give him that much.

I wonder if Nick will have the balls to go on Kurt's show, or if he will spin his tale privately?

The latter. I think any explanation Nick could give publicly would be suspiciously like Kurt's outburst (i.e. "Fuck you.")

I do not think there will be an open rift. Kurt does not have too many friends. He will keep his opinions to himself.

Yes, and he knows if he pushes back too hard he'll get dogpiled by the Racketeers.

He's basically stuck in a cult. Which is not a claim I make lightly.

I know he's trying to ride the fence slightly by qualifying his statements but at least he's willing to retain a level of honesty and entegrity . I don't know what wrong with the Andrew and legal vices side of the equation. Maybe being pseudo legal consultants overseas who hound for Asian pussy at bars skews your moral compass in weird ways.

I agree, and honestly, I think Kurt has the most integrity out of anybody in Lawtube.

Like I get that he's a cringe autismo, but JFC, look at everybody else in Lawtube. Kurt is a relatively low-end lolcow. I'd hazard a guess that if he didn't involve himself with Lawtube he probably would have flown under KF's radar entirely.

What's going on? Did he think that the guy in chat was mad at him for going against Nick?

That's one possibility, but I'll also note that it seems like he has a pre-existing issue with the questioner. It's evident he knows the guy.

Rekieta has been extremely aggrieved and mean-spirited about the whole situation ever since the Spectre phone call with Schneider.

Which, to me, is FUCKING INSANE. I can't imagine any halfway intelligent person taking Spectre's word, without corroborating evidence, at face value. Not after he was exposed as stolen valor and a host of other lies.

We all know Nick has a tendency to lose his shit when mean words are directed at him, but here's the thing: Nick wasn't a party to the alleged phone call with Schneider. It's not like Schneider tagged Nick on Twitter and called him a niggerfaggot. What guarantee does he (or anybody, for that matter) have that Spectre gave a true and accurate accounting of the phone conversation? What guarantee does he have that Spectre isn't just saying things as a means to insert himself into a legal drama for clout (something Spectre has a well documented history of doing)?

Ironically, it's been noted that Nick really hasn't mentioned Spectre by name throughout all this. And I suspect that's because even Nick knows that if he mentioned Spectre, it would elicit eyerolls and ridicule. Instead, he's said "one of my mods."

The whole thing doesn't matter any sense from a logical standpoint. Rather than apply the same healthy skepticism that many other people do when dealing with Spectre, Nick seems like he's itching for any reason to lash out at Schneider.

 

[Potatoherder]

A weirdly good night on rumble compared to yt. Partial log again, going to try the super nasty hack next, if it works it works.

$61 on yt and $183 on rumble. Even when you remove the $70 from a guy asking about how to get a gun as a felon he still almost has double what he got on youtube.

DigitalCocaine	Is there any way to purchase a shotgun LEGALLY (hunting) if you have a felony? Charge: 75 § 3732 (Allegheny Cty PA)
DigitalCocaine	Word. Ill go get 1 in the hood. That's what happens when you try to do right.

------------------------
Total Rumbles: $ 184
Rumble Count: 18
Conversion Rate Raw: 0.2955665024630542
Peak Viewers: 6090
------------------------
Chat Messages: 2564
Muted: 0
Deleted: 0
Unknown: 1
------------------------
StreamID: 176894308
Start: 2023-07-13 22:27:00.746526528 -0500 CDT m=+0.001680621
End: 2023-07-14 01:27:01.918029484 -0500 CDT m=+10801.173183652
------------------------

May be the reason we got a call in show with all his cope.

MattHimSelph

do locals call in show tonight

 

[Balldo's Gate]

As to what Nick should have done, if Nick had properly understood his state's case law or asked the opinion of an experienced attorney in defamation, he would NEVER had said those things about Monty in the first place or dared him to sue. Daring someone to sue you is probably one of those times its worth a talk with an attorney first.

I think the underlying context here is key. Monty tried to sue a guy pro se before. He struggled to even state a claim and sued the guy in Colorado, where Monty was but not where the guy lived. The lolsuit was easily dismissed. Nick probably expected that if Monty did sue it would be the same. He should have settled as soon as Monty retained a local (to Nick) attorney.

$61 on yt and $183 on rumble.

These are basically Ralph numbers at this point. At least ~$240 in a night sounds like Ralph numbers before he lost his audience by streaming every day pilled out and drooling. Ralph would unironically probably make more superchat revenue than Nick if he had a YouTube account.

Even if these are only partial numbers for Rumble, the guy was pulling in $1500+ a night not even a year ago on YouTube alone. Sad.

He seemed him out asking 'How he responds to allegations of being an open coomer'. Nick deflects with jokes. He presses on the 2 Instagram follows from Hedo. Nick plays dumb and makes more jokes about black people. He deflects from confirming his vacation destination.

It became very clear that this is someone who is on his side. It honestly felt like something rehearsed... Call me crazy.

Nick doesn't think people can go a month without spanking the money or bean. He loves sex. He used to watch a lot of porn--the implications being he is just a guy who people misunderstand and people have 'gay theories'.

They called out KiwiFarms at the end. They are sure we will spemd 6 pages on it. He also called said him and his wife had never had sex with a black man or woman (NO TRANNIES!, LOL!). He also said that he and his wife were virgins when they met. This contrasts with his story of Trad Christian image of when they were virgins when they got married.

Nick think that most people on the internet have fears that black men will have sex with everyone. He wonders why they are afraid of that... He doesn't want to shame though. A bunch of them are incels, but he regrets using that term. He picots into using Drexel to deboonk the black bull fantasy in the rumours about him.

Wait what? He addressed this shit?

That sounds like some pure, distilled cope. Why have the clippers not gotten to this yet? I am so, so disappointed in Elissa and not-Faran.

 

[Strix454]

Nick think that most people on the internet have fears that black men will have sex with everyone. He wonders why they are afraid of that... He doesn't want to shame though. A bunch of them are incels, but he regrets using that term. He picots into using Drexel to deboonk the black bull fantasy in the rumours about him.

Nick was out of town last weekend. But in Drex's last stream (I think with that legal mindset guy), Drex talked about having stayed at Nick's house that same weekend with at least Nick's kids.

The interesting question for Nick I guess is:

- If your wife didn't travel with you, why was Drex saying with your wife while you were out of town? Not a really normal sort of thing.

- If your wife was traveling with you, why was Drex saying at your house presumably with all your children? Expecially your female children?

Drex doesn't get heat because he is black. Drex gets heat because he constantly presents himself as the ultimate player who picks up wives, who women can't resist, whose career in part involved setting up interstate gang-bangs and who openly brags about having done the daughter of a mother he used to be involved with. A daughter he went on family trips to disney with when she was a minor. This isn't "black" Drex. This is MGTOW I want a stripper pole in my living room playa Drex.

The Drex that Nick has interviewed and talked to on his show would move on any wife put in front of him. The Drex that Nick interviewed would put on the moves on someone's of-age daughter if he had access.

Most of what Drex says is bullshit. But it is stuff he says. You can't PLAY the black bull and then wonder why people talk about you that way.

Drex's whole bit is largely being the black bull who would have sex with anyone (except of course black women who Drex doesn't like). Yet Nick is somehow confused when people take what Drex says seriously.

 

[Swole McPole]

In fairness, Monty's lawsuit would have probably failed if Nick had lived in a different place, the circumstances had been slightly different or Monty had followed a more usual legal strategy in these things.

@Strix454 your posts in respect of Nick's lawsuit have always been a model of illumination for me. They stood out back then as nuanced and informed by a combination of both the law and an understanding local practice. They've never been anything less than an unalloyed pleasure for me to read, and I always learn stuff as a consequence.