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.

[LiquidKid]

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.

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

Dude, just take the L and move on, you’re detailing the thread with this

 

[Strix454]

Literally the Vic case because Ty was a fuck up.

Total bullshit. The vic case has nothing to do with "people are directly protected from the consequences of actual defamation per se." An incompetent lawyer is not an example of a protection from consequences of defamation per se.

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

That makes no sense whatsoever. You seem to be trolling now.

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

Yeah. I asked you for an example. You didn't provide one. And now you double down saying the same thing. Either retarded or troll. I'm done with you either way.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Dude, just take the L and move on, you’re detailing the thread with this

All i did was say Nick’s never changed. Why should i move on when the only reason this is going on is people said no, were provably wrong and it tagented off from there?

That makes no sense whatsoever. You seem to be trolling now.

Most of the cases Nick has covered have been about people defaming people and screwing with their buissnesses. And a recurring point has been the result is never as clear cut even when it should be due to speech protections.

Think the only one that wasn’t was Rittenhouse and the dude the killed his family.

Yeah. I asked you for an example.

Elon Musk vs the dude he called a pedo work for you?

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

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

This is fucking stupid. Named and shamed yes, restricted no. If his conduct strays into criminality (drunk driving comes to mind) then punish him. For everything else, relentlessly mock him.

People should be allowed to fuck up their lives because the alternative is an oppressive nanny state that won't fucking leave you alone for your own good. At least the Kiwi's will stop pointing and laughing if he stops being interesting.

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.

You're misattributing what Nick thinks he was on the inside after the change (and Nick is terrible at introspection) with what he actually was. Men have all sorts of thoughts and ideas, but what we are is our habits and actions.

Nick did not have a habit of getting overly drunk on stream when he first started out. He didn't go out and get high on Molly until Hedonism II and Matsuri. He appeared grounded. And the farms witnessed him systematically unfasten all those anchors and alter his personality over the course of several years to such a degree that it gave his former fans whiplash.

You can look back with hindsight and see the seeds of what he would become (love of whisky, prior addictive proclivities via Runescape, openness to strip clubs, a loose moral framework, arrogant personality), but those seeds taking root and manifesting in the way he acts is still a change from what he was.

There were multiple points where Nick could have Pulled Up, but he didn't and now he is what he wasn't.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

Think the only one that wasn’t was Rittenhouse and the dude the killed his family.

Kyle Rittenhouse, Curtis Reeves, Kim Potter, Alex Murdaugh, Chandler Halderson. Nick covered all these trials, none were defamation. The only case he live streamed that was defamation was Depp.

Edit: Add Aaron Dean and Taylor Schabusiness. Also not defamation.

 

[Captain Manning]

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.

That is a consequence of Tyrone Percy Beard being a unadulterated fuckup. It does not support your conclusion that defamation per se is free speech. In fact, thanks to Ty, Vic's case didn't settle a goddamn thing.

Also, you're like the only person on KF I think that has tried making the argument that Nick was outwardly always the way he is now. Even the people here who argue Nick has always been this way internally have conceded that he hid a lot of it really well, or that he's otherwise gotten way worse.

I agree with @LiquidKid. You're shitting up the thread with things that barely seem discernable for the drivel that's being logged in Nick's Locals. They too have argued that Nick's free speech is under attack by Montagraph, and that Nick has always acted the way he is now. Both of those claims are objectively bullshit.

Consider letting it go, or pay the $5 to discuss it on his Locals. I think you'll get a more receptive audience. I hear he's really pushing hard for subs these days.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

@Catgirl Tyranid
Nick claimed to not get overally drunk. I remember the audiance never really buying the excuse

Kyle Rittenhouse, Curtis Reeves, Kim Potter, Alex Murdaugh, Chandler Halderson. Nick covered all these trials, none were defamation. The only case he live streamed that was defamation was Depp.

Ah. Ok. My mistake. He not thought he had done that many. Was thinking mostly of ones before he streamed. Sp yeah, by now, he’s definately covered more non defamation.

Edit: Add Aaron Dean and Taylor Schabusiness. Also not defamation.

Ah. Think i missed those? What were they about? His coverage any good.

 

[AnOminous]

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.

Except in this case Nick is the rich guy who was counting on his victim not to be able to afford to sue him, and is now attempting to use his disproportionate wealth to get away with calling the guy a child molester based on literally nothing.

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

Nick claimed to not get overally drunk. I remember the audiance never really buying the excuse

There's a wide berth between "audience thinks he drinks more than he lets on because it plays into his lawyer persona" and "Fuckity whisky tits Batman! Nick is absolutely an alcoholic who can't help but coom when talking to ANY woman he has on stream!"

But agree to disagree. At the end of the day, a tragic downfall is a better story than a twist villain so that's what I'm choosing to go with.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Both of those claims are objectively bullshit.

I do hope you are right. Seeing Nick lose would be great.

,or pay the $5 to discuss it on his Locals. I think you'll get a more receptive audience. I hear he's really pushing hard for subs these days.

But that would be gay. You guys are way more fun. And locals is garbage as platform.

 

[AnOminous]

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.

If he isn't on drugs, maybe his "worst day" was finding out he has some degenerative neurological condition that is causing him to turn spastic.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

If he isn't on drugs, maybe his "worst day" was finding out he has some degenerative neurological condition that is causing him to turn spastic.

I've seen one theory floated that he got a diagnosis of MS.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

maybe his "worst day" was finding out he has some degenerative neurological condition that is causing him to turn spastic.

Wait does he really? Cause either way Nick’s body just seems to hate him. And who could blame it? Developing something odd to screw with him is totally something I could see happening.

 

[AnOminous]

Wait does he really? Cause either way Nick’s body just seems to hate him. And who could blame it? Developing something odd to screw with him is totally something I could see happening.

Between the weird obsessive chewing behavior and twitching and shaking like a delirious, palsied lunatic on the Eric July stream, his incoherent babbling speech, etc., he's clearly gone downhill mentally and whatever is wrong with him is even having obvious physical manifestations.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

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.

What really fucked him was the doubling down. If he just parroted the "Monty is a pedophile" line, even if he was found to be defaming him, Monty would likely have to prove damages. The problem now is that, once confronted, Nick said, and I quote "[Monty] sucks little boy cocks." That is a very specific accusation that is also a crime. A good attorney could likely argue that calling someone a pedophile isn't defamation per se, because being attracted to children isn't in of itself a crime. Sucking little boy cock is a very specific felony.

I just don't know why someone would do this to themselves. We're months into this and I'm still absolutely baffled.

 

[4stardaysbahbe]

If he isn't on drugs, maybe his "worst day" was finding out he has some degenerative neurological condition that is causing him to turn spastic.

Maybe he did, but if so its telling that his reaction to that isn't to get his affairs in order properly in case he kicks the bucket sooner because of it. Y'know, making sure his children are and will be provided for after he becomes incapable, making sure his wife will be ok etc. Instead he goes into a full alcoholic and potentially drug abusing death spiral a la Ralphamale. Who knows what he'll leave his children with the way he keeps going

 

[AnOminous]

Who knows what he'll leave his children with the way he keeps going

A smashed up Rustang and a collection of feces-covered Balldos.

 

[4stardaysbahbe]

I just don't know why someone would do this to themselves. We're months into this and I'm still absolutely baffled.

Think they'll eventually settle or is Rekieta's brain so pickled that he insists on fighting?

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Between the weird obsessive chewing behavior and twitching and shaking like a delirious, palsied lunatic on the Eric July stream, his incoherent babbling speech, etc., he's clearly gone downhill mentally and whatever is wrong with him is even having obvious physical manifestations.

I’d take a stab and go Parkinsons but maybe the drink has finally wrecked him. It can absolutely cause that much damage. And it can hit overnight. Even if you assume he was drinking modestly which he never was.

Guess I’ll now eagerly wait to see if he goes scitzo.

is Rekieta's brain so pickled that he insists on fighting?

Definately that. Never known the guy to settle nicely when he believes he’s in the right. And he absolutely does.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

Think they'll eventually settle or is Rekieta's brain so pickled that he insists on fighting?

Apparently there is no settling at this point. Nick has made that clear.