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.

[Catgirl Tyranid]

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's a Tranny. Only a Tranny would be so brazen with no regard for the consequences. Coddled at the top of the DIE stack for so long that fear of consequences no longer register.

 

[LiquidKid]

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.

In what reality is saying that a company is denied service solely because law enforcement is saying they’re being investigated for child pornography not considered defamation?
It’s a willing and deliberate lie as there is no such investigation or notice from law enforcement, and the malice is to make the company look bad specifically so Epik looks better and justified in the random denial of service/seizure of domain. And even by stating this lie publicly, Epik knows it will shape the opinion of others making it harder for KF to do business.

Like, come the fuck on Nick. You could have taken a lot of angles. “Suing wouldn’t be easy as they would have a multi-million dollar army of lawyers.” “Even if you’ve win, the case would be stuck in appeals forever.” “Lie or not, this is a narrative well documented in mainstream journalistic outlets.” And all of those would have had merit, but it’d take a real lawyer to even consider them and not a bitter alcoholic.

 

[waffle]

The real problem with the epic thing is that they seem to be a zombie company on the ragged edge of total bankruptcy. I kind of worry they may have been firing off shots on their way out the door.

 

[AnOminous]

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?

Nobody was under oath. Nick not only doesn't know what's going on, he just straight up makes shit up.

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

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.

That is the latest claim. People like Vordrak have been claiming for years that this site is a safe haven for pedophiles and a bank of child porn while providing zero proof so it's a bit difficult to say exactly what Epik is talking about. Considering they out and out lied about a court order telling them to remove the site for CP I'm guessing they're just saying whatever the hell they want because they can.

The real problem with the epic thing is that they seem to be a zombie company on the ragged edge of total bankruptcy. I kind of worry they may have been firing off shots on their way out the door.

Having on your resume "Crashed my last company with no survivors" is a bold strategy that fits in with troon logic. Can't wait for the gofundme to help the poor, disabled, trans woman who can't find work because of all the bigot bullies.

 

[Strix454]

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?

I think Nick was trying to argue that written legal submissions in other legal cases (maybe Greer) involving the farms as to the structure of the farms as an entity could be considered "false" or "lies" if the farms contradicted those arguments in a potential case against Epik.

But in making that argument, Nick was assuming all sorts of things which he had either no knowledge of or incomplete knowledge of to make a hypothetical argument that would seem convincing to people who don't know much about the law. All that mattered to him seemingly was the accusation of false statements under oath.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

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.

Nobody was under oath. Nick not only doesn't know what's going on, he just straight up makes shit up.

This is the clip (from 0:59:42) for context.

Licensed Minnesota attorney Nick Rekieta implied that @Null or his attorney may have lied to the court in the Russ case by pointing out that trying to sue "Kiwi Farms, a website" is a nonsense since a website, in and of itself, is not a legal entity that is capable of being sued.

Nick's most coherent position of his claim:
"If they claim in a filing they aren't a legal entity, incorrectly asserting something doesn't necessarily make it true, but it makes you having made a false statement under oath in your filing. In one of them."

After smugly smiling to the camera Nick adds at the end "I'm not accusing" anyone of anything and "I don't actually know."

(We know that, Nick.)

Let's start with why Nick is saying stuff this stupid. Nick is doing his usual thing:

1. Start talking about legal case with zero prep because prep is a waste of time
2. Skim document while on air and focus on one little detail and interpret it hyper-literally
3. Celebrate being smarter than everyone and smugly smile for the camera

The detail Nick narrowed in on appears to be this from the featured post: "Kiwi Farms is a West Virginia LLC." Anyone with a basic knowledge of the situation would understand that this was a colloquial statement which refers to the actual legal entity, Lolcow LLC, I've highlighted the relevant text highlighted on the screen Nick is showing here.



However because Nick likes to pick up on gotchas without actually knowing what he is talking about, he thought this meant that @Null's attorney lied to the court when pointing out that "Kiwi Farms, a website" is not a legal entity that can be sued.

As that actually only happened last week, I doubt Nick is aware of it, and he may have been thinking of earlier when the fucking judge pointed out that, hold on, this doesn't make any sense. Nick was clearly aware about something called Lolcow LLC existing at least one point since he mentions it 15 minutes earlier in the stream, at 44 minutes in, when he first brings up the Russ case after hamming up his smug fake confused face that he does before introducing something that he thinks is a big "GOTCHA!":

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

However because Nick likes to pick up on gotchas without actually knowing what he is talking about, he thought this meant that @Null's attorney lied to the court when pointing out that "Kiwi Farms, a website" is not a legal entity that can be sued.

when he first brings up the Russ case after hamming up his smug fake confused face that he does before introducing something that he thinks is a big "GOTCHA!":

I wonder if some of this comes from his stupid first case he loves to crow about? When he managed to prove that an HOA was no longer incorporated, and thus the lawsuit by the HOA against his client was invalid. (I think they ended up settling? Or it got thrown out.) If true, it was a legit Matlock level twist. But that ruined him for all future cases and analysis, because his stupid, half-empty head assumes everything is like TV.

Or he's just a disingenuous faggot.

 

[Potatoherder]

He did 3x better on rumble than YT( $52 ). Nick posted a link to an interview with the store involved with the mexican lawsuit. 28 for 'josh', 24' for 'kiwi', and 'jew' was 156 hits. The only interesting thing about this stream is YT was lower than rumble.

------------------------
Total Rumbles: $ 158
Rumble Count: 46 ( 14 )
Conversion Rate Raw: 0.5031721723911616 ( Adjusted: 0.1531% )
Peak Viewers: 9142
Peaked time: 2024-01-23 01:40:47.314001021 -0600 CST m=+21433.835902523
------------------------
Chat Messages: 3491 ( 333 unique users )
Muted: 0
Deleted: 0
Unknown: 1
------------------------
StreamID: 252098111
Start: 2024-01-22 21:54:52.828262018 -0600 CST m=+7879.350163537
End: 2024-01-23 02:31:06.376993119 -0600 CST m=+24452.898894627
------------------------
StreamURL: https://rumble.com/v48onlb-kiwifarm...tus-fani-willis-in-hot-seat-mexico-sues-.html
------------------------

 

[waffle]

Nick has been getting into his wife's pills. His theater kid faces are out of control and he can't understand basic facts. His questions he's just asking, which totally aren't accusations, are answered in the very court filing from the russ case he's referencing.

"Kiwi Farms a website" is not a legal entity, lolcow, LLC is and directly or indirectly it owns kiwifarms.net domain. This is trivial to understand. When Nick pretended to practice was he just out there putting crazy shit on filings nor bothering to look up the actual entity names of businesses? Or is his spaghetti brained take that you can't defame a business unless you use their entire legal name?

 

[AnOminous]

After smugly smiling to the camera Nick adds at the end "I'm not accusing" anyone of anything and "I don't actually know."

(We know that, Nick.)

No, shit. This is a full retard take. Not even a non-practicing lawyer should be this stupid. Even a layperson is usually not this ignorant. Nick is a complete fucking idiot.

Or is his spaghetti brained take that you can't defame a business unless you use their entire legal name?

I think I can safely say that if you knew absolutely nothing about what's going on between Epik LLC and the Farms, and then you listened to Nick's freezing cold take, you'd know even less afterwards.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I think Nick was trying to argue that written legal submissions in other legal cases (maybe Greer) involving the farms as to the structure of the farms as an entity could be considered "false" or "lies" if the farms contradicted those arguments in a potential case against Epik. But in making that argument, Nick was assuming all sorts of things which he had either no knowledge of or incomplete knowledge of to make a hypothetical argument that would seem convincing to people who don't know much about the law. All that mattered to him seemingly was the accusation of false statements under oath.

Common NPL 'L'.

He took this opposite line with Juju and Pedo against Eric. HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY CONTACTED THE MINISTRY!?!

Licensed Minnesota attorney Nick Rekieta implied that @Null or his attorney may have lied to the court in the Russ case by pointing out that trying to sue "Kiwi Farms, a website" is a nonsense since a website, in and of itself, is not a legal entity that is capable of being sued.

Weasel words. Nick likes to split hairs over the colloquial versus legal definitions and try to win... something.

Remember his ace argument in debates? 'Well what if I do not agree with your facts?' His genius was that they cannot get you to agree with their logical conclusions if you disagree with the premise of facts stubbornly enough. he enjoys this making then angry and confused.

As that actually only happened last week, I doubt Nick is aware of it, and he may have been thinking of earlier when the fucking judge pointed out that, hold on, this doesn't make any sense. Nick was clearly aware about something called Lolcow LLC existing at least one point since he mentions it 15 minutes earlier in the stream, at 44 minutes in, when he first brings up the Russ case after hamming up his smug fake confused face that he does before introducing something that he thinks is a big "GOTCHA!":

Liar who lies. Just like he has never admitted to going to Hedonism II.

 

[elb]

 

[Waifu Days]

Nick's take on the term "host" is drenched in hatred for Null. I don't totally disagree with his points that defamation cases are hard and come with tons of complications (and Nick knows about dropping the ball on that matter), but Nick is mad.

 

[Cyber Autist]

I signed back in to post because of the Elissa Clips video of Rekieta "covering" the potential Epik lawsuit. I just wanted to say that Rekieta is a disgusting two-faced faggot that deserves to be raped in court by Montegraph.

 

[The Snail]

Why does nick keep touching his face? Is he just sitting in his chair arms crossed?

 

[waffle]

I was right, Nick's doing fuckloads of drugs to get through his "sober" streams. He is fucking zooted in that clip. It's even clearer in the long clip.

Has he changed his camera settings or does he look even shittier?

 

[Chibitzen]

Nick's take on the term "host" is drenched in hatred for Null. I don't totally disagree with his points that defamation cases are hard and come with tons of complications (and Nick knows about dropping the on that matter), but Nick is mad.

And just think, this is our reward for helping him with getting replatformed. Protecting free speech often comes a price, often with tons and tons of complications, sure, and yet... that's what other people were willing to overcome to help revive his ungrateful ass so that his own would be protected. There would be no "contracts" without the community that backed him either. His enduring arrogance continues to amaze.

 

[Waifu Days]

Besides, I might be a dumb dumb but did Nick claim to not be a law channel. Why is he talking the """law"""? At the end of the Elissa Clips video, he all of a sudden remembered Section 230 in some drunken condescending tone. He really needs to stick to his word and stop all the lawplaining. Just taste test Mac & Cheese or visit abandon malls already. Be the lifestyle channel you've always been, Nicky.

 

[Swole McPole]

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.)

a.) Why would anyone take advice on defamation from a failed lawyer who is so half-witted that he's having to spend hundreds of thou defending himself in a case where insisted that somebody likes to suck little boy's dicks? He's the absolute last person you'd approach for advice on the issue. You'd be better off going to a random non-lawyer. The advice you'd get could hardly be worse.

b.) I assumed Ralph was extrapolating from Rekieta's advice to Vito, insisting that it was perfectly legal for him to go and piss on the grave of Eric July's late grandfather. If it's OK to piss on somebody's grave, it must surely be OK to cum on somebody's grave. So while the advice wasn't directly from Rekieta, I think it was indirect advice Ralph is relying on here. Again, why anyone believes Rekieta has ever been involved in any kind of serious legal practice remains an utter mystery to me.

c,) My core question about the feasibility of a defamation law suit is whether you can actually defame a business? I imagine it must be possible, but I'd also imagine that the rules would be very different to defaming an individual. Would it not be something closer to tortuous interference than defamation? Unless Null was thinking about suing on his own behalf, as the administrator of the site. They've certainly defamed him personally, by claiming that he operates a site that has a policy of allowing CP. Did Rekieta touch on any of this stuff? I'm betting not, because he's a moron and not a lawyer.