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: 63 16.6%
  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 94 24.8%
  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 65 17.2%
  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 153 40.4%

  • Total voters
    379
You can actually have this as a rider on a homeowner's insurance policy.

They're generally not interested in covering it if your whole public face is deliberately defaming people while daring them to sue you though. That's some retard shit. That's like claiming your car insurance should cover you going around deliberately running over children.

I actually remember this being discussed during the Vic saga. If I'm remembering correctly Ronica were planning to have their homeowner's insurance cover their fees. Nick went on at least one or two confident rants about how they are in for a shock when they find out those types of policies don't cover intentional torts. It would be funny to find out he's relying on that as well. History, poetry, rhyming, etc.
 
I actually remember this being discussed during the Vic saga. If I'm remembering correctly Ronica were planning to have their homeowner's insurance cover their fees. Nick went on at least one or two confident rants about how they are in for a shock when they find out those types of policies don't cover intentional torts. It would be funny to find out he's relying on that as well. History, poetry, rhyming, etc.
He's also using the same arguments that would have made sense in a world where Minnesota had an anti-SLAPP statute and even desperately trying to import one from another state after frothing at the mouth about how bad anti-SLAPP statutes are.

Meanwhile, he is paying six figures to suck the long dick of the law.
 
How does this keep happening to him? He is absolutely surrounded by people assailing his marriage and assuming he would whore out his wife, and all he seems to muster is a bemused feeling of flattery. That’s not normal. If a couple friend asked if they could fuck my spouse I would be disgusted and horrified and at the very least never speak to them again.

I'm a literal fucking boomer. I've been married for forty years and my social circles are about as deviant as you can get.

Yet this has NEVER happened to me. Not even once. Not in the 70's. Not in the 80's. Not in the 90's.

I'm guessing because I never went to Plato's Retreat. Never went to Hedonism II, Never went to a party where women were throwing their husband's car keys into a fruit bowl.

If people are asking about this, it's because you're sending out a pretty clear message that you're up for it. The only issue that needs resolving, to my mind, is does it happen because Nick and Kayla are actual swingers, or does it happen because they're the swinging version of cock teasers? Are they meeting up with another couple that they know is into the scene, yapping on about the dungeon they plan on building, their St Andrews Cross and the recent vacation at Hedonism -- and then when the other couple pop the question, they come out all affronted like Derek from the Catherine Tate Show.

 
Didn't Randazza mention early this year that he had a freeze peach case that already costed the client over 100k? Think it was March or April. If he was talking about Rekieta. It wouldn't surprise me that he's going to be pissing away at the very least $250,000 by the end of the trial, as long as it doesn't get dismissed. Along with whatever the settlement is going to be. That is over half a decade worth of wages for the average American.
I dunno about that, but I'd bet anything he's crossed into the six figure range by now. Probably even a while back. The average American annual income right now is apparently $59,428. Even if you subtact the $12,239 from the GSG from whatever he's paid, he's still spending more on this idiocy than most hard-working Americans.

You could make the typical argument it's his money to spend on whatever dumb shit he wants and whatnot, but it doesn't make him any less disgusting.

He said more than that in regards to who the client was and it was Nick one hundred percent. The only thing Randazza changed though was that he said Nick called Monty a retard, omitting the pedophilia accusations.
Oh wow.

That almost sounds like a tacit understanding on Randazza's part that what Nick said was REALLY fucking stupid and ill advised. :story:

Nick went on at least one or two confident rants about how they are in for a shock when they find out those types of policies don't cover intentional torts. It would be funny to find out he's relying on that as well.
You know what I would find funny?

If it turned out that Nick's theory about Schneider working on contingency is actually true. The GFM being needed because he didn't have such a deal with the other lawyer brought in to handle that.

This whole thing ends with Monty having little to no out of pocket expenses, win or lose.

THAT would be the pinnacle of hilarity. Especially after Nick went on and on about how he was gonna destroy Monty.
 
I'm so fucking back @Useful_Mistake and all other mods are trannies who can suck my profile picture so can @Norbert the Tiger for doubting my power.
Fish head guy was banned. I see no real fish head posting now except for a few users messing around. This is the legacy of @Hurdy Gurdy Virtuos0, warning us of Drexel this whole time.
I was the prophet of our times. Eat it.

Our wife propositioned muh fish eyed drexel but he's too much of a bro TM to do that to balldoman. She prefers niggeroni just like our boy fatty rick I wonder if they also fart in her vagina?
 
Drexel tells Nick about how someone close to him, "closer to [him] than [he] knows" for added emphasis, so much so that they will have to have a talk about it after the stream, approached him expressing disappointment in her marriage
Remember when Cynthia first showed up in this thread and was desperately trying to push a narrative that whatever was going on in Rekietas marriage was his fault and poor innocent Kayla was just a helpless victim being dragged into degeneracy by her deranged husband?

I remember.
 
Legal bro's, I need your opinions.

If Monty wins, does that make any difference legally to anyone else that Rekieta has dropped a bucket of shit on, if they were inspired by a Monty victory to sue him for defamation?

Rekieta appears to be saying he has to fight this case to the bitter end, else some of his A-Logs might come gunning for him.
 
Legal bro's, I need your opinions.

If Monty wins, does that make any difference legally to anyone else that Rekieta has dropped a bucket of shit on, if they were inspired by a Monty victory to sue him for defamation?

Rekieta appears to be saying he has to fight this case to the bitter end, else some of his A-Logs might come gunning for him.
I don't know about alogs specifically because I don't know what he's done to any random alogs that constitute a crime. I think he's potentially more at risk from people he's covered in the past like Russel Greer, Maddox, Ron Toye, Monical Rial, Jamie Marchie, MarzGirl, Christopher Sabbat, etc. who might see it as blood in the water and an opening.

Still lawsuits cost money and if frivolous open you up to counter claims. I have a feeling he's mostly safe from any knock on consequences from Monty winning. Nick isn't defending freespeach, he's defending his own retardation. Based on my memory of the past he hasn't opened himself up to defamation like this prior and use to be careful about hemming statements he made in qualifiers like "allegedly". My prediction is he'll receive his lumps for being stupid about monty and might cool off on running his mouth about other people in such a flagrant way in the future and have no further legal troubles.
 
Nick: I'm sick of covering Trump and guns! I'm not doing it anymore!

Also Nick:
1000004975.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a literal fucking boomer. I've been married for forty years and my social circles are about as deviant as you can get.

Yet this has NEVER happened to me. Not even once. Not in the 70's. Not in the 80's. Not in the 90's.

I'm guessing because I never went to Plato's Retreat. Never went to Hedonism II, Never went to a party where women were throwing their husband's car keys into a fruit bowl.

If people are asking about this, it's because you're sending out a pretty clear message that you're up for it. The only issue that needs resolving, to my mind, is does it happen because Nick and Kayla are actual swingers, or does it happen because they're the swinging version of cock teasers? Are they meeting up with another couple that they know is into the scene, yapping on about the dungeon they plan on building, their St Andrews Cross and the recent vacation at Hedonism -- and then when the other couple pop the question, they come out all affronted like Derek from the Catherine Tate Show.

I've had it happen literally once in my life and it was from some sex-crazed maniac who I met on a job who was also trying to show me nudes of his girlfriend, and had a lolicon mobile phone wallpaper. i.e. exactly the kind of person you'd meet at Hedonism II
 
Oh wow.

That almost sounds like a tacit understanding on Randazza's part that what Nick said was REALLY fucking stupid and ill advised. :story:
Even Kurt made it pretty clear on stream with Nick that he was a retard for doubling down on the accusations. Monty still probably has to prove damages, which might not really exist, but such accusations are way more likely to have actual damages associated with them than calling someone a retard or a cuck.

Now what would be funny is if Monty somehow gets Nick to call the judge in the case a pedo on stream.
 
Nick: I'm sick of covering Trump and guns! I'm not doing it anymore!

Also Nick:
View attachment 5365528
This bait and switch is so obvious that you have winter temp iq not to see it. I wonder if a lower than expected resub rate will be what makes him finally drop the pro-trump facade. Seems like he is doing a bit of a hedge by bringing back the coomer wednesday show.
 
Legal bro's, I need your opinions.

If Monty wins, does that make any difference legally to anyone else that Rekieta has dropped a bucket of shit on, if they were inspired by a Monty victory to sue him for defamation?

Rekieta appears to be saying he has to fight this case to the bitter end, else some of his A-Logs might come gunning for him.
It's nonsensical. Especially when he talks about a settlement setting a "terrible precedent" for other people. Unless his longshot appeal works out, he is not setting any precedent because that is not how precedent works. And no precedent would be set by him admitting he was wrong and settling, much less settling privately without an admission of fault.

Even if he meant "precedent" in an informal and imprecise way (even a year ago he was on the ball enough to do better than to do that) I really disagree that admitting that he drunkenly fucked up, which he very plainly did, would set a negative example for anything.

There also is already actual case law that was cited by the judge in this case that I would argue is pretty narrowly on point as to what Nick said.

This bait and switch is so obvious that you have winter temp iq not to see it. I wonder if a lower than expected resub rate will be what makes him finally drop the pro-trump facade. Seems like he is doing a bit of a hedge by bringing back the coomer wednesday show.
These politics shows are the equivalent of sober Ralph streams where he silently watches cable news streams to zero interruptions by super chats. Nobody is motivated to donate because it is exceptionally obvious that dude is going through the motions.

You are the one who posts the super chat summaries so you would have a better idea than I do but I have a vague impression that the coomer shows have reached the point where they bring in about as much or more money as the politics streams. He clearly hates covering politics so I don't know why he bothers... I guess with the legal stuff he kind of has to pretend to cover law or else change the name of his channel.
 
Monty still probably has to prove damages, which might not really exist, but such accusations are way more likely to have actual damages associated with them than calling someone a retard or a cuck.
Not really if the judge agrees that its defamation per se. https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html
(The First Amendment does not protect these statements. Some types of false statements are so damaging that they are defamatory on their face — "defamation per se."...
False Statements That Constitute Defamation Per Se
There are four main ways to classify false statements that the law presumes to be harmful to a person's reputation. Generally, if the statement does not fit into one of the four categories, the plaintiff must prove their actual damages.

Here are the four categories of defamation per se:

Saying that someone committed a crime or immoral conduct
Saying that someone had a contagious, infectious, or "loathsome" disease
Saying someone engaged in sexual misconduct or was unchaste
Saying something harmful about someone's business, trade, or profession
)

If Montys lawyer is able to convince the court that Nick's statements constitute defamation per se damages are presumed. We went over this in ass bleeding detail while Nick covered the Vic lawsuit. Monty can be argued to tick the boxes on example 1 and 3 of the listed examples of defamation per se. Its considered a crime or immoral act and its a form of sexual misconduct. Just need to cross the hurdle of getting the court to agree.
 
Legal bro's, I need your opinions.

If Monty wins, does that make any difference legally to anyone else that Rekieta has dropped a bucket of shit on, if they were inspired by a Monty victory to sue him for defamation?

Rekieta appears to be saying he has to fight this case to the bitter end, else some of his A-Logs might come gunning for him.
As others have already said, he's in this mess because he fucked up epically in one specific manner. This whole "I can't settle, or everybody will sue me" is a cope. Most people he's talked shit about over the years wouldn't have a case to the extent Monty seems to.

If Rekieta is arguing that it's important for everybody to be able to falsely accuse people of child molestation whenever they feel like it, he can get fucked. That's not free speech. I don't think most people would support that argument.

Monty still probably has to prove damages
He actually does not. Not on the per se.

He might have to prove actual malice if Monty were ruled a public figure.

What that said, I'm wracking my brain how anybody could falsely accuse somebody of child molestation and NOT be a malicious asshole. Actual malice is also defined as "reckless disregard for the truth," which seems to fit Nick's comments to a T.

Not really if the judge agrees that its defamation per se.
Exactly. That's the "specific manner" in which he fucked up.

If you live in Minnesota, don't be an utter fucktard like Nick and run your mouth like he did. Simple as. Worries eliminated.
 
As others have already said, he's in this mess because he fucked up epically in one specific manner. This whole "I can't settle, or everybody will sue me" is a cope.
He's a fucking idiot. He's seething and coping. He's completely incapable of facing the fact he fucked up. He was drunk, and he fucked up, because he was a drunk idiot.
 
These politics shows are the equivalent of sober Ralph streams where he silently watches cable news streams to zero interruptions by super chats. Nobody is motivated to donate because it is exceptionally obvious that dude is going through the motions.

You are the one who posts the super chat summaries so you would have a better idea than I do but I have a vague impression that the coomer shows have reached the point where they bring in about as much or more money as the politics streams. He clearly hates covering politics so I don't know why he bothers... I guess with the legal stuff he kind of has to pretend to cover law or else change the name of his channel.
The coomer streams are very hit or miss depending if he can create drama. The Vito streams do well because people like to shit on pedos but if it's just Nick being a perv grandpa then it's pretty low numbers. Overall the coomer streams do way better than his 'old' content.


It's still early but yt is indicating this is a stinker.
firefox_yD0tKG8MRX.png
 
Back