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.

[AnOminous]

Only if you completely ignore the context and him going "teehee, isn't this so funny?" every 5 seconds. I'd expect a real lawyer to have questions and poke holes in the underlying theory too, but if they're framing them this way right off the bat in something they're pretending to cover neutrally they're more interested in petty snipes than actually examining the case.

Nick's advice is about as useful as LawTwitter's at this point, a bad faith offering from a malicious actor who is obviously seething and on top of that has done his usual level of research, that is to say, zero, and most importantly of all, has no clue what the fuck he's even talking about.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

Real talk, I'll help fund the suit if it happens. That said I do think the chances are small as I would argue the farms at this point are defamation proof because of all the defamation over the years. Hope I'm wrong and a good enough lawyer should be able to overcome such an argument but getting said lawyer may be difficult.

Nick is just a dumb coombrained alcoholic faggot however, and he's trying his hardest to downplay exactly what has taken place.

 

[Oliver Onions]

I begin to think that perhaps Nick consumed alot of Pickup-Artist/Redpill education about women in his youth.

Isn't he too old for that? I thought that crowd didn't pick up notoriety til the early 2010s when Nick would already have been, what, 30-something? Honestly I think it's just Drexel who has been whispering in his ear all these years like fucking Jafar.

When he was young and carefree he probably laughed it off, but as he gets older, drunker and more weighed down by responsibilities suddenly Drex's life of pure hedonisitc degeneracy seems more and more appealing. It would be the funniest thing in the world to me if we get the Divorce Arc and he completely flips to a MGTOW/Redpill channel.

“Straight” guys who “joke” about being gay are like “totally not pedophiles” who “joke” about wanting to fuck kids: They always mean what they say and it’s never a gag. Nobody who isn’t those things talks about being one that much, whether as a shitty attempt at humor or otherwise.

I think volume is the deciding factor. If you make a '50 bucks is 50 bucks' joke once in a while then it's whatever, but when you're known as the gay joke guy people should be sus.

Plus Nick is such a bad comedian I could believe there's a chance he only makes so many gay jokes because he is stuck in the 2000s when that was still the height of comedy, but equally he does it so much that I'd be more surprised if he turned out to be straight, at this point.

 

[newuser131]

Nick's advice is about as useful as LawTwitter's at this point, a bad faith offering from a malicious actor who is obviously seething and on top of that has done his usual level of research, that is to say, zero, and most importantly of all, has no clue what the fuck he's even talking about.

this is the same rekieta who hyped up the vic monyana case and said it was a winner for vic, help crowdfund it and then referred his lawyer friend. how did that case turn out? rekieta does not have a good track record as a practicing lawyer, let alone a youtube lawyer.

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

this is the same rekieta who hyped up the vic monyana case and said it was a winner for vic, help crowdfund it and then referred his lawyer friend. how did that case turn out? rekieta does not have a good track record as a practicing lawyer, let alone a youtube lawyer.

Nick always maintained that even though he believed Vic should win, the case had no better than a coin flip's chance of winning in the court. Ty screwed one thing up pretty embarrassingly but even if he had not it would not have saved them from a shitty judge.

 

[newuser131]

the case had no better than a coin flip's chance of winning in the court

did rekieta say this before or after the crowdfunding?

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

Wasn't the text only nonce board on 9chan

I'm pretty sure that board was on 8chan and the problems from that followed Null and are why we no longer have 9chan.

did rekieta say this before or after the crowdfunding?

Through out the entire thing. Even Null mentioned it during the Ethan Ralph stream he did with Nick.

 

[AnOminous]

Through out the entire thing. Even Null mentioned it during the Ethan Ralph stream he did with Nick.

He never said defamation would be anything short of an uphill climb. The only thing he did say was it should have been a no-brainer to get past at least a SLAPP motion, which it indeed should have been.

 

[Spaded Dave]

I think the point he made about host vs had is a good one.

"No, you don't understand your honor. I said that he fucked kids in the past. I didn't say he was actively fucking one right now."

Case dismissed!

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Clearly Balldoman's "legal" analysis last night was just a hasty, ill-thought out, emotional response to Sean's smack-down of Balldoman's great legal advice to Ralph regarding cooming.

"How dare he and the Farms make fun of my clearly superior intelligence! Why, I'll show them by explaining how their legal idea is stupid!"

(Note; I only half believe that Ralph asked Balldoman about cooming on Harry Morris's gravestone, but I would believe if asked, Balldoman would give that dumb of an answer. The other, equal probabilities are 1. Ralph lied about it and 2. Ralph and Force Ghost Andrew Tate asked Balldoman about cooming in a Xannie Berry hallucination.)

 

[Strix454]

Isn't he too old for that? I thought that crowd didn't pick up notoriety til the early 2010s when Nick would already have been, what, 30-something? Honestly I think it's just Drexel who has been whispering in his ear all these years like fucking Jafar.

No. That crowd was around way before the 2010s. Ross Jefferies was well known enough in the late 1990s for them to write a character in a movie based on gimmick played by Tom Cruise. Guys like Mystery were around in the 2000s. The book "the game" by Neil Strauss in 2005 got mainstream attention. There was also the whole speed seduction community on the internet in the second half of the 1990s.
The early 2000s was somewhat of a golden age for that stuff with certain college guys who had access to the internet. It was out there, but it didn't have alot of mainstream attention or criticism which is what allowed it to later take off and get more mainstream noteriety.
Its a good point about Drexel though. He could have been the one into it communicating to Nick. But this is all speculation.

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

Yeah but, again, Null would do that with either a lawyer who has his best interests at heart, or at least one that doesn't know him from a hill of beans. Most importantly, he'd do that with a lawyer who knows what the fuck they're talking about.

That's not Nick Rekieta. A man who is mad at Null because Null won't force the Farms to go back to sucking his dick by censoring this thread. A man who has never won a case in his life. A man who barely qualifies as a lawyer. A man who, if he actually did try to go back to practicing law in his current state, probably would be eventually disbarred.

He seemed charitable enough, doesn't look like he holds a grudge against Josh, or at least doesn't show it. Yeah, maybe he was more dismissive about this than he should've, but he wasn't malicious in any way. At least I understand his skepticism regarding this hypothetical lawsuit.

Only if you completely ignore the context and him going "teehee, isn't this so funny?" every 5 seconds. I'd expect a real lawyer to have questions and poke holes in the underlying theory too, but if they're framing them this way right off the bat in something they're pretending to cover neutrally they're more interested in petty snipes than actually examining the case.

He's a clown first, lolyer second.

 

[Strix454]

Nick is being disingenuous while talking about the defamation with Josh, but I think that's a good thing in this case. I think he made some good points.

Obviously, we all know what that Epik employee was trying to imply, but seeing a lawyer pick it apart was interesting. I think the point he made about host vs had is a good one.

He didn't really understand the issues involved and didn't do any prep work for talking about it. He presented the illusion of being a legal expert and questioning a potential case, but no more than that. His understanding of per se defamation in the matter was totally wrong. He kept pushing his discussion to the question of if the farms did or did not ever have CP on it. But the defamation here is saying falsely that the farms was subject to government action related to CP. Its per se defamation in my opinion because its an absolute statement implying criminal activity that is blatently false. Alot of his analysis was passive-aggressive tied back to the problems of his own defamation case.
Nick spent alot of time trying as usual to make cute arguments about language and defamation through a bad faith understanding of the situation. His section 230 argument made no sense.

What you had here was a non-practicing lawyer skimming forum messages in real time and talking off the top of his head about a situation he didn't really have a good understanding of. Half the time he was making accusations rather than asking questions.

The better questions to focus on in any lawsuit is (a) what do you want to accomplish as plaintiff (b) how likely are you through a lawsuit to reach that goal (c) how much money is it going to take.

He could have done better if he had spent even a half hour before for the stream reviewing the situation and doing some basic show prep. Nick these days is all about providing the illusion of expertise and analysis rather than the real thing.

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

Real talk, I'll help fund the suit if it happens. That said I do think the chances are small as I would argue the farms at this point are defamation proof because of all the defamation over the years. Hope I'm wrong and a good enough lawyer should be able to overcome such an argument but getting said lawyer may be difficult.

The only thing I've learned from watching these defamation cases play out is that it's all sorcery and that no matter how justified your case, it could still go up in smoke because of a stupid judge. I don't think Jersh should sue Epik, I think it'll be a waste of time, money, and energy that would be better spent elsewhere. Best case scenario we get a boomer judge who can't physically access the internet and be bombarded with anti-Kiwi sentiments. And then he still might Chupp things up. I just don't see this ending positively for the site.

But then again, maybe this is just another boulder Grand Janny Jersh needs to push up the hill even if it might roll back down.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

His understanding of per se defamation in the matter was totally wrong.

Given Balldoman's lack of understanding of per se defamation in his own lawsuit with Monte, as well as Epik's tweets- I'm guessing Balldoman either skipped class the week they covered per se defamation, or we've identified one of the Swiss Cheese holes alcohol has created in his brain.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

>people giving AIDSkieta the benefit of the doubt

Nigger he defamed Montegraph for less. The Epik thing is a company outright lying about a customer or being retards and not sharing a law enforcement request if they are not outright lying.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

Lame.

Whats with the child porn claim though?

IIRC that all stems from a video of someone under 18 watching/reacting to the Chris-chan video of him copulating with a sex doll. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, it's a very important point.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I would say it's his 3rd time and about to be his 4th. The second time he pulled this line of gay retard logic was completely misunderstanding Josh's intention to develop something that flags CSAM via a hashing algorithm. I think it was deliberate, or his brain was so pickled with bourbon it was effectively immobilised.

I wonder if he will pivot into:

IT'S JUST JOKES! SO FUNNY!

or

I AM JUST ASKING QUESTIONS! WHY DID YOU MAKE ME DO THIS!? I HOPE YOU MAKE A MILLION DOLLARS!

Considering Nick is covering the KF thing and his live viewer numbers didn't increase all that much...does that mean there's like hundreds of you (not "us" cause i'm not counting myself as a regular watcher anymore, okay? i've already tuned out ) that are regular hate watchers? Is nick realizing that too?

I just wait for tireless @elb to clip the main show proper, and I suspect many wait for my summaries of LOCALS stream and her subsequent clips, exclusively.

There is only so much Balldo we can handle, and there is no need for multiple Kiwis to watch when a few can get the job done.

Did NIck and Ralph make up or something? Hes talking about the farms having a video of a teenager jacking off. Whats that about?

Lame.

Whats with the child porn claim though?

Either pure fabrication, or parroting some slanderous claim a cow has made against the forum because they were mocked.

This is Nick's e-daddy. A guy who thinks its "unfathomably based" to support woke liberals over the 1A. Remember that when Nick does another show about freeze peach.

JUST ALL JOKES! HAHAHAHA! SO FUNNY! WHY ARE YOU MAD? THAT'S THE JOKE! DICK IS SUCH A CONTRARIAN SCAMP! NEXT HE'LL DO BABY RAPE OR CALL SOMEONE A PADEO! SO FUNNY!

Oops... The last two were Nick...

Typical Nick. No preparation. No real understanding of the actual issues. Pretending to a level of knowledge of the law he does not have. The stuff where he sits there giggling asking "who is the plaintiff" is just stupid.

He's just asking questions... This 'who is the plaintiff' is sounding like a more educated 'I do not consent to joinder', or 'where is the state of [X?]' that sovereign citizens in the US pull.

(I do not totally understand the American law, but people getting tackled and tased can be funny.)

At 1:01:36, he makes an accusation that someone "might have lied under oath". But he follows up shortly after explaining that he isn't accusing anyone of anything. In implying that someone lied under oath, Nick says he is not accusing anyone of anything. Just asking questions about a lawsuit. Nick loves everyone and he just wants to understand.

I will need more context about who exactly was under oath, because that does jot make sense in this Twitter spat. Unless he is saying that Epik actually was contacted by US government and asked to take The Farms down, and the complainant to the government lied?

He talks in a self-serving way about per se defamation and doesn't tie it back to the situation being discussed here. He trys to bring in section 230 and somehow say that section 230 somehow enables defamation of websites without recourse.

There's a limit to this general rule of 230 being an impervious shield to bad acts. While you never want to be the test case, someone has to be... I do not know if he qualified it, but as a rule, this will be an uphill battle and most people recognise that.

And Nick says that lying about "US authorities" taking action against a website is in no way defamatory. He just isn't sure how publicly falsely saying that an entity is subject to actions by law enforcement could possibly be defamatory.

Much the same way that calling police for 'suspicious activity' is not a crime. People use legitimate government services for illegal harassment and to get wrong-think punished.

You should have at least a prima face case before you try, but something like... I don't know... calling someone a 'predator' is definitely geared to slandering their reputation. I wonder who would make an argument like that, though...

At the very least having police at your house makes people assume you have done something wrong, and I would try to argue that a business reputation is often worth more money than a personal one. I do not know if that is a winning argument or not...

Then to finish things off on a low note, he platforms Ethan Ralph through a superchat to make an accusation about CP against the farms. Then goes faggot saying that if what Ethan Ralph said is true that it "could cause a problem". There you go. Expert Witness Ethan Fucking Ralph.

The most annoying thing about the video was all the giggling, the hand flopping, Nicks little faces and the passive-aggressive denials of everything he is obviously doing in the stream.

FREEZE PEACH! I bet he hopes Null makes a million bazillion dollars.

I mean, it's all fair questions, that's what I would expect my lawyer to do - poke holes in the case I'm making before it's presented in court, so I could fill them in.

Yes, but Nick is a source of perverse truth. You need someone objective. Even if Nick is trying to be objective, Null should not take him at face value.

 

[waffle]

There's literally no reason to take anything seriously that Nick says about defamation, especially per se defamation. He has a gigantic incentive to lie about it because of his own case, and what I've seen of his analysis so far makes me think he's following that incentive.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

There's literally no reason to take anything seriously that Nick says about defamation, especially per se defamation. He has a gigantic incentive to lie about it because of his own case, and what I've seen of his analysis so far makes me think he's following that incentive.

I mean Epik’s entire social media thing is retarded. Either a tranny is running it, a Cat mom doing a sleepless amphetamine binge, or the password to the account was literally password123.

It also hits too close to home because it’s akin to what Nick did to Montegraph sans saying Null personally sucks baby penis.