You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
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.
Nick, externally:
"I'm not mad, you're just scared of your forum and users. I definitely wasn't seething two weeks ago at my thread, oh and Drexel was totally just joking."
Nick, internally: Coping, seething, sneeding, dilating his asshole with wine bottles etc etc.
Nick in the first chunk of tonights stream can be summed up in 30 seconds:
[Nick, reading a chat, not a rumble rant, an ordinary message in chat] "Why did you lie to Josh about what you said about Monty", I didn't lie to Josh about anything that I said aboutMmonty. Everything I said about Monty btw is part of the public record and everything I have said to Josh about what I said to Monty is truthful.
I think Josh thinks that I left a bit out...maybe...IDK
I don't know how to hide about what I said about Monty, its on the lawsuit... and its on my videos and I have talked about it fifty times but whatever.
Edit; Nick earlier in his drunken rant about NULL, "NULL is being manipulated by people into talking shit about other people he is friends with". Also, its good to know that NULL is fearful of me specifically, since I use Kiwi Farms.
I haven't tuned in for a while since his slow decline, but holy shit he's so fucking red now. He's really got that alcoholic's giant red nose going on now.
Dude needs to stop drinking and deal with that hypertension.
Nick, externally:
"I'm not mad, you're just scared of your forum and users. I definitely wasn't seething two weeks ago at my thread, oh and Drexel was totally just joking."
Just a reminder of Drexel’s “joke.” A direct quote from him un-edited in anyway. These are his exact words when explaining his “totally not grooming, it was just a joke, I’ve only known this person since they were a child and took her fun places like the movies and amusement park.”
Simple:
My good friend's daughter (teen at the time) and I were always cool... NO, I never groomed or ever said 1 word of a sexual nature around her (she learned of my exploits through others)
She eventually goes to college and dated a simp. I innocently met up with them at her behest at the state fair and then he exposed his simp nature to me, a non simp
They broke up BEFORE she moved across the country to do her doctorate program (age 22). Once there, *SHE* contacted *ME* about wanting to explore BDSM
I reluctantly agreed, so I took her to a bondage club to see if it were truly for her (it was... uh oh!!)
I tried to persuade her to find a professional Dom out there, but there were none to 100% trust, so... I had to fill the role so she could explore WITHOUT getting exploited, sold into a sex ring, hurt/killed (locally, MULTIPLE deaths happened at the dungeon club inside Gay 90s due to these Craiglist doms not knowing WTF they were doing)
Eventually, her mom found out due to the Apple Cloud and that was that!! 0 grooming!! Kill that noise & get your facts straight!!
Just a reminder of Drexel’s “joke.” A direct quote from him un-edited in anyway. These are his exact words when explaining his “totally not grooming, it was just a joke, I’ve only known this person since they were a child and took her fun places like the movies and amusement park.”
Apparently the joke was drexel telling the story to nick on stream, omitting the fact that he knew the daughter since 13 and showing the upset mother's messages to nick and both laughing at it.
That's some movie villain shit. These people (drex, nick, dick, vito) are just lying about their vile behavior to each other so they can all back each other up.
Clipped the full segment where he bitches about @Null, it's about what you would expect. He goes on about how Drexel is misunderstood and how Josh is being manipulated by some group of people and again claims people in this thread break the rules without saying who even though they should be reported if they actually are breaking the rules. He also keeps bringing up how "funny" all of this is and claims Josh is afraid of his own site for some reason
I don’t think “you don’t understand, I HAD to be a BDSM Dom toward my friend’s daughter I’ve known since she was an early teen! To protect her!” is helping you as an excuse, dude.
"Bro, we're two big time freeze peach guys. We need to stick together and have each others backs, so that whenever somebody disrespects one of us (or one of our buddies) we stamp on that shit immediately to prevent reputational damage. Reputation is money, right? Your punters are fucking with our business.
I mean, it's one thing to insist somebody is a paedo who sucks little boys dicks when there's no evidence they ever did that -- because that's clearly a freeze peach matter. But when people discuss my friend's admission that he groomed his friend's daughter and then turned her out as a BDSM submissive as soon as she was old enough that he wouldn't go to jail -- well that shit's beyond the pale and YOU need to make sure it's not happening on your website. And don't even begin to get into the shit they say about me and our wife and our trips to Hedonism II and the swinging we do there with the black bulls.
Just take it all down, now."
He's not exactly being subtle about it. That's why he's calling you an autist. He couldn't tell you what he wants any more directly without spelling it all out for you syllable by syllable.
Clipped the full segment where he bitches about @Null, it's about what you would expect. He goes on about how Drexel is misunderstood and how Josh is being manipulated by some group of people and again claims people in this thread break the rules without saying who even though they should be reported if they actually are breaking the rules. He also keeps bringing up how "funny" all of this is and claims Josh is afraid of his own site for some reason
I haven’t watched nick since his ass bottle almost a year ago now. This entire segment was kind of uncomfortable to watch. Based on how he was before, his inflection, his hand movements, and just his overall style of speaking comes off as someone trying to manipulate and gas light someone. “It is not I who is MATI, I find I it funny, actually it’s you who is MATI. Why are you so mad?” At the same time I can sense the internal coping and seething. Overall that whole clip was just weird to watch.
- Drexel's stories are not contemporary, (so they aren't bad).
No, It doesn't matter if it was old or not. The story is still shite. You cannot stop people from forming a present opinion based on old information. Nick seems to have this issue ' I made changes but NO ONE CARED!' in his leaked DMs
- Josh is manipulable because he will comment on things people send him and he HAS to do it.
There is nothing stopping Josh from saying: 'I heard this, but I don't agree. Stop bugging me about it!' It is not like he has done this before... Josh is not beholden to say anything specific when he makes commentary.
- Josh is MATI because Nick tried to help him be less autistic.
Praise be to the benevolent Nick! Why reach out to try to 'fix someone'? This has 'everyone clapped' energy.
- Josh doesn't remove stuff without a court order
Look at the paedo accusations in the Montegraph OP... It was removed for lack of good evidence
- Josh is comfortable with people being caught up in paedo accusations becuase it is so bad and needs to be punished. Nick thinks that one person being punished is unacceptable.
By Nick's words, Josh didn't say that innocent people should be punished, but it is an unavoidable comsequence of a morally correct harsh inquisition on the most heinous behavioir.
Nick takes the pseudo-moral high ground that no one should be wronfly accused or punished ever. In addition to being unrealistic, it is also self-serving if you apply this principle to social judgement because under this system you are not able to be judged until the 'official' system has ruled on you. Even when it goes against you, you can maintain innocence because the 'system got it wrong'. Nick is missing the point here:
The point is 'play with fire; risk being burned' and the moral 'Stay the HELL away from any suspicion of paedo shit!'. Nick is screeching 'NOT FAIR! I AM NOT A PAEDO EVEN THOUGH I HANG OUT WITH THEM! DON'T JUDGE ME BY MY COMPANY!' Shades of 'There is no evidence I went to Hesonism II to swing' intensifies.
This whole thing just feels like bait for content. Nick seeing Dick and the pedo getting attention from fucking with Eric July makes him want to create his own villain. He failed so hard trying to become Vic Lasagna 2 with his monty lawsuit that he's just reaching for some controversy to revive his dead channel. Would be a lot funnier to just ignore him and see how desperate he gets.
exactly. what rekieta wants is for null to sweep up kf for him. if he directly says it, he will look retard and everyone, even his current supporters, will call him out on it. especially, if there are dms. so rekieta goes about it in a indirect way. the picking up "social cues" is saying that null won't sweep it up. but, obviously, null pick up the "social cues".
rekieta is a scumbag. just admit you are butt-hurt about kf turning against you and you want it to go back to page 950. the thing is, you and your actions were responsible for your own audience turning against you.
i used to think rekieta was the most stable of all the cartoon characters in the sektur, due to the fact that he had a stable family life. but i was completely wrong. i can't tell if it is the midlife crisis or he was faking the stable family situation the whole time.
Clipped the full segment where he bitches about @Null, it's about what you would expect. He goes on about how Drexel is misunderstood and how Josh is being manipulated by some group of people and again claims people in this thread break the rules without saying who even though they should be reported if they actually are breaking the rules. He also keeps bringing up how "funny" all of this is and claims Josh is afraid of his own site for some reason
This entire thing with regard to the story being a historical story is just so odd. It really doesn't matter if someone is grooming a kid and subsequently brings it up as a joke, or if they are currently grooming, they are still terrible people.
Also this is one of the first longer videos of him that I have seen in a long while and is it just me or are his gesture and movements much different than they were previously, like he does not have complete control over his movement.
- Nick hates talking about drama. Other people keep bringing it up, so he HAS to talk about it. He's trying to keep people entertained and not talk exclusively about 'Trump and guns'
So wait... Josh is beholden to The Farms and 'highly manipulable' when he talks about himgs people send him, but Nick has to address it becuase people bring it up to him...
- Nick wants to go to San Antonio (Brandon Hererra) but he cannot go easily with his wife due to kid wrangling. If he goes without her, the rumours would be flying. The REAL reason he doesn't want to do it is becuase he likes travelling with her.
- Nick says 'every man's brain is enslaved by coom' as a half-joke. This pivots into a more serious 'sometimes you just need to clear your head before you start something'. He thinks multiple perspectives on marriage needs to be presented and he is intentional about how he talks about relationships and sex.
So Nick is 'clearing his head' by talking sex and degeneracy on your show? How mentally constipated is he to have needed MONTHS of coom talk?
- 'Why does Josh hate Drex?' 'As a rule, Josh doesn't like black people', but maybe it is 'black culture'. It could be either, and it is confirmation bias. Nick thinks Josh cannot understand that Drex is not swinging or fucking married women now. The dislike is based on a misconception of current verus historical behaviour.
Nick did not associate a lot with Drex during that period he WAS doing these things, so the stories were fun to tell on the show because they were new to Nick.
He specifically says the 'grooming' was bot true and he tried to give Josh the real facts. He think Josh is overly cynical because most of the people he sees are horrible. Once we see 'ghosts' we assume every creak in a house is a ghost. Our cope is that we don't think EVERY house has ghosts, but we are always right about the subset we suspect.
So when Drex talks about visiting 'T', 'my sub in CA', 'J', and the rest, it is all historical. It was entire weeks ago!
- Everything in Nick's life is pretty good. People will say his entire stream is 'cope'. Other people vrought it up; not Nick. He had ups and downs, especially more downs last year, but it is good now. You can't change the world, though, and people have very strong and wrong opinions because they don't have 'the incorrect view'. There was a period where he hated streaming this year, but that is past.
Nick probably means 'all the facts' but the misspeak on the words he used was funny.
- People asked why he doesn't stream. It really bothers Nick, he WANTS to do it. May was hard. He had a family wedding that had all kinds of stress. School starting keeps him busy in the day. They hired someone to help with transport. His trial streams are notoriously bad for viewership. People project how fun they were based on highlights. He doesn't want to cover one if it isn't funny. He cannot clear weeks at a time. Other people can, he has a family. He still makes money on them, but he has responsibilities. He is away from his house most of the day.
First, Nick Jason had the nanny to drive kids around for years. Mentioning it now is disingenuous.
Second, the trial streams being low viewership is not true. He had thousands.
Finally, he should have MORE time than other people who cover trials, but I guess 'I have the wrong perspective'.
- Nick said that YT subs in the 6 figure numbers change when 1 person unsubscribes at the margin of a thousand. He doesn't care about YT, people unsub there when they go to Rumble. He wants to increase Rumble subscribers and that is all he wants to grow.
- He wants to have Barnes and Gouveia on to talk Trump indictments because 'they cover it more' He wants to have Lead Attorney on to talk about the 'black perspective' on Trump. A LOCALS person gave him this idea.
-Last-minute rushed announcement that Ty Beard will be on with 'fun topics' tomorrow. He will bring back WTF Wednesday and fan submitted content to react to beciase that was 'fun'.
Clipped the full segment where he bitches about @Null, it's about what you would expect. He goes on about how Drexel is misunderstood and how Josh is being manipulated by some group of people and again claims people in this thread break the rules without saying who even though they should be reported if they actually are breaking the rules. He also keeps bringing up how "funny" all of this is and claims Josh is afraid of his own site for some reason
I find this point extremely irritating and probably the most explicitly dishonest part
Josh has been extremely fair with Nick and Nick has declined every opportunity to set the record straight on all this stuff which he claims is wrong or misleading.
Nick refuses to name names when it comes to people who have apparently been blatantly breaking the rules in this thread but he also won't stop bitching about it.
Josh isn't stupid and I know he's only been this charitable with Nick because he likes him and I personally hoped that even in Nick's diminished state that they'd remain on good terms, but I doubt that will last if Nick keeps on insulting Josh's intelligence by both suggesting that he'd be unaware if a group of forum users were actually trying to manipulate him and also thinking that Josh just can't tell that Nick has been acting really weird and obviously manipulative and passive aggressive in all their interactions.
Unfortunately idk how to search DMs (or if that is even possible) but Wolfetone would sperg out in DM groups a lot about Null being easily manipulated by KFers and these same people breaking rules on his site.
Clipped the full segment where he bitches about @Null, it's about what you would expect. He goes on about how Drexel is misunderstood and how Josh is being manipulated by some group of people and again claims people in this thread break the rules without saying who even though they should be reported if they actually are breaking the rules. He also keeps bringing up how "funny" all of this is and claims Josh is afraid of his own site for some reason
My god that was so self indulgent, I physically cringed the entire time. How many people has he tried to manipulate in DMs or offline conversations that have ended the exact same way now?
“I don’t agree with you so you must be wrong, and if not then there is something wrong with you.”
“Ohmahgawd, you think I’m manipulating you, you must be mad at someone else because I’m perfect”
“Why did you tell everyone what I said, now they will think I’m a slimy passive aggressive narcissist”
“Now I’m going to publicly air this and say everything you said with a dumb voice to manipulate my viewers, before they inadvertently believe their own lying eyes.”
I think Nick fundamentally misunderstands kiwi farms. Like unless you’re a dissident tranny orbiter, you probably didn’t find Kiwi Farms for the community, you found it because something else specific that you wanted more information on lead you to kiwi farms because the rest of the internet deleted it. Or because you noticed how many content creators use it for source info.
The point is, it’s a discussion around some nucleus of facts with salty internet detective type personalities, and we by nature punish wannabe e-celebs who try to get attention here.
He may have correctly assessed that a lot of negativity about him exists here and emanates from here, but it’s not a thing where you can make Josh impose a preferred conversational tone. To do that, he’d have to change the underlying facts.
And sure, we enjoy speculation. But that’s the result of trying to fill in the blanks. When evidence appears, we incorporate it.
Trying to argue, schmooze and/or lawyer your way to a narrative unsupported by evidence is just going to result in us doubling down on the narrative actual evidence suggests, or our preferred speculation. But the preference in speculation generally goes for what’s most supported, and we just twist the knife a tiny bit for fun.
Nick, if you read this, don’t use the word “fact” without attaching it to evidence. You know better.
