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]

Especially when you are asking them to defend free speech.

Defamation isn't free speech, stop being retarded.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Defamation isn't free speech, stop being retarded.

It can be. It’s why you ususally have to fight this in court and most places have anti-slapps. For this very kind of speech.

 

[Sewer Rat]

It can be. It’s why you ususally have to fight this in court and most places have anti-slapps. For this very kind of speech.

Wisconsin doesn't agree

 

[No Scope]

It really is. Perhaps it shouldn’t be. But it is.

It's actually accusing someone of a crime, a felony. I don't know of any rallies where someone gathered and made it a talking point. If anything, it would be at the bottom of the list of the things to say.

This discussion we're having here reminds me of a scene from Falling Down.

 

[ChromaQuack]

It can be. It’s why you ususally have to fight this in court and most places have anti-slapps. For this very kind of speech.

The reason you have to do so is precisely because it's unprotected speech, I don't think it would even exist as a legal figure otherwise.

The supreme court has made sure there are some standards to apply when it comes to defamation as it is otherwise very easy to abuse (slapp suits, public figure and malice standards, etc.), this doesn't mean defamation gets carte blanche as first amendment protected speech.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Wisconsin doesn't agree

As it says, only if it is false and proven.

Otherwise, eh.

Honestly the law in general probably needs to be looked at in regards to the internet in most places.

I don't know of any rallies where someone gathered and made it a talking point. If anything, it would be at the bottom of the list of the things to say.

Well yeah. Because it’s stupid to do so. But stupid can be allowed

I mean, the ADL did defend the Nazis

this doesn't mean defamation gets carte blanche as first amendment protected speech.

Course not. But it does mean it gets it chance to try and get carte blanche or be proven to be free speech.

 

[Bitcoin Henchman]

Odd. Mr. 'Words and Their Definitions and How You Construct Them Mean Something' all of the sudden decides they don't actually matter...

He also claimed early on in the pre show rundown stuff that his claims about Monty are the same as everyone else's and that Monty already lost on it, again ignoring his completely original baby dick acusations.

- Nick teaches the secondary school Maths. He stands in when Kayla cannot teach. Otherwise Kayla teaches Maths and English. He also likes Physics like Quantum Mechanics and Astrophysics. He could also do Chemistry and Biology if he had to with Civics.

What about those famous lawyer math skills nick always complaints about? And i dont think proper ways to snort coke counts as chemistry. Also what makes Kayla unable to teach besides maybe the occasional sickness, which seems to be both of them sick when it does happen?

 

[Spaded Dave]

and most places have anti-slapps

Wrong again, friend. Anti-SLAPPS exist to prevent people of disproportionate wealth and/or resources from silencing actual free speech through the threat of lawsuits. It's why the "public figure" question is so important. "Public figures" used to just be politicians and the like but the standard has spread so far due to the internet that the line is almost nonexistent as to who can be considered a "public figure". But it was never created or intended to protect people from the consequences of actual defamation per se.

Strange...I feel like I heard that explanation before from some drunken lawyer defending a lasagna man. Probably just a symptom of the mass hysteria though.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Also what makes Kayla unable to teach besides maybe the occasional sickness, which seems to be both of them sick when it does happen?

Flu season with a family of 7 would likely run the risk of putting them both out. Or she’s busy doing other stuff. Life sometimes happens.

 

[ChromaQuack]

Course not. But it does mean it gets it chance to try and get carte blanche or be proven to be free speech.

Yes, so by it's very definition it is not protected speech, therefore not free speech.

The question of Nick's lawsuit would be "did he defame monty", the question has to be raised precisely because defamation is NOT protected speech.

If his statements are or aren't defamatory is the question here, not the figure of defamation itself; and as far as I'm concerned calling someone a pedophile is on your public livestream covers at least three points on the standard for prima facie defamation (the same standard he attempted to use in the KV case)
Nick should fight:
-His statements being fact (how would he even prove this?)
-That he didn't communicate them to anyone (livestream, so that's dead)
-That there was no negligence or actual malice on his part (I'm certain it would not take a superlawyer to demonstrate either, but a Ranweasel could wiggle about this somehow)
-Damages (normally I'd say hard to demonstrate but considering he's acussing him of a particularly nasty felony I don't see much wiggle room in this, the Ranweasel could surprise me tough.).

In any case he would not be trying strange Hail Mary moves if his statements were easy to prove as not defamatory, Randazza using him as an ATM for this is incredibly telling of the strength of his case on its own.

 

[LiquidKid]

You don't remember "Other people are free to swear on my show but I'm just not going to participate in it"?

I have no idea if I misheard or am misremembering, but I seem to recall a stream pre-rumble where Nick very angrily ranted about his chat “dropping n words” and getting mad that he wouldn’t say it.

If I’m not just hallucinating, that would be a pretty blatant example of his shift.

Really though, he did change. I never liked him, but I never thought he was a degenerate. I never liked his use of alcohol, but I never thought he was a full blown alcoholic. Much like his physical appearance, his decline has happened far faster than anyone could have anticipated

 

[4stardaysbahbe]

It can be. It’s why you ususally have to fight this in court and most places have anti-slapps. For this very kind of speech.

It is IF you're advocating for total, unregulated free speech.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

But it was never created or intended to protect people from the consequences of actual defamation per se.

But frequently it does. Because a lot of speech people file lawsuits over is free speech. But just because the speech is protected doesn’t mean you don’t have to fight for those protections nowadays.

Now for what it’s worth I doubt it will protect Nick. Because not doing would be the funnier option and Nick has a bad habit of being wrong.

In any case he would not be trying strange Hail Mary moves if his statements were easy to prove as not defamatory, Randazza using him as an ATM for this is incredibly telling of the strength of his case on its own.

Seems less so strange and more they weren’t expecting to have to do what they are doing, Monty somehow mangaed to throw a wrench in that, and so they have to now argue stuff they weren’t intending to.

Even a strong case can be thrown off course by a well timed wrench. Heck, such a move sunk Vic’s entire case. And led to the apeal judges going ‘would have sided with Vic but the lawyer was retarded’ like every other paragraph. Was screamingly funny

 

[Anticipointment]

Nick’s always been this way.

Oh not to say there werem’t some that realised from the start. But they were not the majority.

Nah. Only thing that’s changed is he rarely talks about lawsuits anymore so everyone has nothing but his degen bs to listen to, previously everyone skipped that stuff.

The people saying Nick has changed are the ones who watched him well before rittenhouse or any of those big trials. We’re taking about 2017/18/19/20. If you didn’t watch him then you’re not going see what a stark contrast there is in “old Nick” vs current coom era “new Nick”. As far as public persona he’s definitely done a 180 turn.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Can’t find a specifically good example but it can be seen in this video, Nick is doing this thing where he sucks in on his lips. Right before the clip ends he does it but also several times throughout. Right before he sways back & forth is another time. It is a peculiar mouth movement that addicts commonly do.

Involuntary mouth/jaw movements are pretty common with stimulants.

I'm not really sure about that short clip, would have to watch the full stream to have an opinion on that, but I found what may be a very good example from Nick a while back. You gave me the impetus to clip it, it's from the video of the Dick Masterson event (technically a Dick Show/WATP crossover event) Rekieta appeared at in Philadelphia in April of this year. Audio of Nick was posted at the time, but I don't think the video was - I think it was unlisted on Dick's channel(?) but even with only audio he was clearly an intoxicated moron who refused to get off stage even when asked.

Recap:

I listened to the entire live WATP live podcast, and Nick sounded even worse in context. As soon as he went on stage he was obviously in belligerently unfunny drunk mode. He was on for over half the show, and kept trying to blurt out zingers that got zero reaction from either the audience or the other guys on stage (aside from a single Vito Pedo joke). He brought nothing, and actually made Vito look funny and charismatic in comparison (which is still damning with faint praise. Vito was, as always, intolerable). A truly embarrassing performance.

Going back to Nick’s performance on this weekend’s Who Are These Podcasts / The Dick Show live event in Philadelphia, it turns out there’s a good reason he was on for so much of the show: he was too drunk to comprehend that he was supposed to leave when his initial segment ended, even after being told to hit the bricks. And the hosts were either too polite or too stupid to physically remove him.

After Dick's YT channel was taken down, it was reuploaded by the WATP people and it's now viewable by the public.

Rekieta gets on stage just before 1 hour 45 mins, and is on until the end of the show at the 3 hour mark. His mouth/jaw is moving continually for basically the whole time, except when he's actively talking. Here is a short compilation of clips, but I'll embed the whole stream so you can check for yourself. The last clip is a longer one where he speaks repeatedly, so you can see how quickly he goes from talking back to the mouth movements.

Rekieta might think he's being subtle, but this clip seems to speak for itself: I obviously don't know if he's on drugs, but it sure as fuck looks like he either took too much of something or is having an hour+ long panic attack.

He doesn't even appear to be chewing gum at least based on the stills I've looked at where he has his mouth open wide and was unable to find any gum, I did scan the video to see if I could find evidence of it, though I'm welcome to corrections. It would seem weird and disrespectful to be chewing gum for over an hour while on stage for someone else's show anyway.



Here is an embed of the full stream if you don't believe me that he's doing it for the full time he's on.

Spoiler: Full stream

 

[6MillionCoofs]

The people saying Nick has changed are the ones who watched him well before rittenhouse or any of those big trials.

I know. He was talking about the kind of person he actually was and what he wanted to do if he wasn’t restricted before the big trails. Was in all the boring streams the few watched. And then he said he was doing thr big trails to get the money to be less restricted. What we are seeing isn’t a change, it’s who he always was that polite society stopped him being.

Polite society really needs to restrict people like Nick, for their own good.

 

[Strix454]

But frequently it does.

GIve a specific example where people are directly protected from the consequences of actual defamation per se.
.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

GIve a specific example where people are directly protected from the consequences of actual defamation per se.
.

Literally the Vic case because Ty was a fuck up.

Thing is actually a lot of Nick’s cases have been defamation + fucking with buissness

And the outcomes have never been as clear cut despite clear defaming because of speech protections.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

Literally the Vic case because Ty was a fuck up.

That's not the same thing at all. A lawyer screwing up isn't the same as the state protecting you from defamation. Either you're a very bad troll or retarded.

 

[Spaded Dave]

Just to clear things up about Nick's drinking. I took a random 3-hour long stream from about 3-4 years ago that specifically advertised drinking in the title and did the same scan/clip. I'm not going to post it in the same video format I did the last one, and I'm not going to include the Rumble cutover reference because being accused of being a WWE fan is a slander too great for me to bear. But here's the timeline for comparison. Top is the time alcohol was on-screen during this "drinking" stream and Bottom is the amount of time it was not. If you do the math, the time he had alcohol in his hand during a DRINKING stream 3 years ago was ~10%. Now it's 45% as a matter of course.

(I sped up the video obviously, so the timeline doesn't represent actual time spent. Total stream time was about 3.15 hours if someone wants to do the autistic math on total actual time spent holding alcohol.)

Anecdotally, this took me WAY less time to do than the first one and I attribute that primarily to the number of instances I had to clip out. In the first video he'd put it down and it would be like 30 seconds before he had it back up again and I had to clip and compress the timelines again. This one he not only drank less, but they were paced out significantly more so I had a lot less work to do.