You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
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.
At this point, I don't know why people would bother to suggest that Nick should cover x trial anymore.
I don't think Nick has the mental faculties to do trial streams anymore, and he's already come up with 4,578 reasons why he can't do any streams during the daylight hours of weekdays. Ya know, when courts actually operate. Day streams, when they do happen, seem confined to weekend degeneracy with Steel Toe, or to denounce God on Easter. Doing trial streams delayed means he plays second fiddle to those it Lawtube who did it live.
Fucking hell, he can barely even do a night show about already stale stories involving Trump and guns. That's not hyperbole, either. We have the calendars to prove it. Even his own LOCALS has made some out of sheer frustration.
Bottom line is I don't think he's gonna even come close to sniff that six figure income anymore.
I somewhat agree, but to be completely fair to Sean, Null went on the Killstream after Ralph got tossed off Cozy. I heard they had a fairly cordial conversation.
Of course, Ralph went back to shitting on Null in pretty short order. Likely on orders from Dick. Which kinda proves the point of what people are trying to to tell Sean here.
I guess what I'm saying is that his Killstream appearance could be just a one-off, for which maybe he shouldn't be judged too harshly.
I don't think Nick has the mental faculties to do trial streams anymore, and he's already come up with 4,578 reasons why he can't do any streams during the daylight hours of weekdays.
He's literally brain-damaged to the point he can't cover trials. He's dumb and drunk, he can't even understand an ongoing trial in his dimbulb state of mind. It would just be embarrassing as he failed to comprehend what was even going on because he was just too drunk to understand it.
Are these petrodollars funding Nick Rekieta’s hedonistic lifestyle?
I think it is generally well known around here that Nick Rekieta comes from wealth, despite soliciting donations every night on stream.
But just how rich is his family background? And how stupid are his paypigs to give him money? Remember, this is the guy who boasted that "I literally don’t need to sustain anything to keep going":
Nick’s grandfather, Lou Owen (full name Louis Walter Owen), father of Nick’s mother Celeste, was an important figure in an oil company called Petrofac that was founded in Tyler, TX. According to Louis Owen’s 2016 obituary, he was for at least some period president of the company. According to his wife/Nick’s grandmother’s 2019 obituary, they had moved to Tyler to join Petrofac in 1982. Petrofac was founded in 1981, so that timeline would seem to indicate that Louis Owen was a very early employee as opposed to a founder or co-founder. The company, which provides engineering services for oil and gas firms, opened an office in the UAE in 1991 and rapidly expended beyond the US. Over the ensuing decade the foreign operations rapidly outgrew the original US domestic business.
Owen ultimately used tens of millions of dollars earned from Petrofac’s success on charitable donations, as outlined in detail by @TherapyMan in a post I’ve quoted in full in the spoiler below:
Since this is being brought up, I wanted to give a greater breakdown of old Lou and Peaches Owen. You may find Lou’s obituary here. They seemed like remarkable people and reading their legacy spelled out by people who knew them just demonstrates how much of an unworthy inheritor Nick Rekieta truly is to their lineage.
Lou seems to have been a very accomplished individual, helping to found and eventually becoming President of Petrofac, an international energy company worth in the ballpark of hundreds of millions and commanding multi-billion year over year revenues. He and his wife, Alberta Marie "Peaches" Owen (deceased 2019) met in high school and married while in college at the esteemed Rice University. Both Lou and Peaches actively engaged in philanthropic endeavors throughout their lives, donating tens of millions of dollars to public works, the church, and in service of their charitable organizations.
For those who are wondering, here is the will of Nick Rekieta’s wealthy maternal grandfather Louis Walter Owen (Lou Owen), a codicil to the will, and an affidavit by the executor of his estate, Ty Beard, in PDF and image format.
For those who are not familiar with Nick Rekieta or his 3,471 page thread which saw him awarded the prestigious title of 2023 LOLCOW OF THE YEAR, here’s a quick primer:
Nick was caught becoming Instagram mutuals with a Minneapolis escort, who had a profile as an "exotic escort" on the infamous website Eros, in late 2023. Several months later, when a guest on his show mentioned the tendency for strippers to offer "escort services", Nick bragged: "Dude, it’s so fucking funny. Well, that’s why I have all their numbers. […] It’s hilarious to me. Like, I love it. It’s great."
NOTE Petrofac was a privately held company until the mid 2000s. The various Petrofac companies underwent a restructuring in the early 2000s, the result being that Petrofac is now based in Europe, having gone public on the London Stock Exchange in October 2005. By that time, the US domestic business based in Tyler had already been sold off: in April 2003, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company spent $25.6 million to purchase "substantially all of the operating assets of" the US holding company, Petrofac Inc. By comparison, when the remaining parts of the company went public in 2005, the IPO price reflected a value of £742 million, demonstrating how quickly the foreign business outpaced the US domestic business based in Tyler.
There are various breadcrumbs which suggest that the windfall from the IPO to Louis Owen was substantial. A philanthropic foundation called the Louis And Peaches Owen Family Foundation dates to 2006, the year following the IPO. (ProPublica)
Nick wrote in a December 2022 YouTube comment on @elb’s channel that he "received zero dollars when [his] grandfather passed". Nick didn’t address whether he received money indirectly through his mother Celeste but admitted: "At some point, I will probably inherit a decent chunk of change."
What's a "decent chunk of change"? Who the fuck knows?
While Nick is correct that the "will made it pretty clear what happened to the actual money", from the will itself (linked above) it sure seems that his mother got a big chunk of it (notice that some of the trusts listed below were created within weeks of the Petrofac public offering in October 2005):
@Strix454responded to Rekieta’s YouTube comment by saying: "The question still remains as to what Nick and wife’s source of income was from 2010 (the end of his last job) to 2018 when he theoretically started making money from social media. […] There is no trace of an income source that could have paid for his house or law school or any number of other things."
Here’s a timeline:
2009: Nick and Kayla purchased their first house for $279,000 in March 2009 (Redfin archive).
2011: Nick started his JD at William Mitchell College of Law, which charged about $38,620 a year for a full courseload as of 2015 according to Wikipedia. Property records show that Nick and Kayla continued to own the home despite the fact that Nick was attending law school in St. Paul, over a two hour drive from Spicer, from roughly 2011 to 2015.
2018: Nick’s current home is purchased for $650,000 by an entity called The Robert Lord Property Trust (Redfin archive). The Rekietas continue to own the property purchased in their own name in 2009.
The Litigation
This is a 15+ year old court case filed against Petrofac by a disaffected former employee.
It reached the Texas Court of Appeals, which is lucky because it means that hundreds of pages of documents survive and are publicly available on the Texas Judicial Branch website.
By 2000 Petrofac consisted of a network of related companies, both US and foreign-based. In 2000-2001 a plan was devised to bring the majority of the assets of the various companies under one banner: namely, a new entity called Petrofac Limited based in Jersey, in the Channel Islands, with a view to an eventual IPO.
With more than 10 companies involved per the plaintiff’s brief, I’m not even going to try to enumerate each one (the trial judge stated that the case had "a really complicated set of facts" and was "worse than any law exam question"). The relevant ones appear to be the two this guy tried to sue: Petrofac Limited (PL), the new company based in Jersey, and Petrofac Tyler (PT), which as far as I can tell was at the time set up as holding company for US-based employees to acquire stock in. According to the appellate brief from PT: "Ownership of shares in Petrofac Tyler was restricted to employees of a Petrofac company".
From the Court of Appeals decision:
In January of 2001, PT shareholders were notified that there was a likelihood of a change in PT's structure during that calendar year. In October, details were given in a shareholder meeting regarding PT's plans to sell its assets to a soon to be created foreign company, PL. The current PT shareholders would have the option of becoming owners in the new company. The new company's purpose was to obtain an equity investor or become a publicly traded company so that more capital could be generated to fund business operations.
Here is how the plaintiff (left) and defendant Petrofac Tyler (right) characterized the restructuring:
Plaintiff
Defendant
You’ll note the first passage that caught my eye in the documents on the left: apparently, Louis Owen was one of three shareholders who collectively owned 63% of Petrofac Tyler. Included in the docket online is the appendix to some of the briefs from each side. Of particular relevance is the appendix from the plaintiff, which is over 100 pages. I am not uploading it due to the size but it’s available if you search the case on the Texas Judicial Branch website. It contains both presentation slides and written Q&As for Petrofac Tyler shareholders, the documents describing the details of the restructuring process, and the Register of Members for Petrofac Limited at some point in time.
I thought this was enough to determine exactly how many shares Louis Owen would have owned. But then I saw this on page 80 of the appendix:
Uh oh! Did he sell his shares before the IPO even happened?
I wanted to double check to make sure that was not the case, and it turns out that Petrofac Limited has documents publicly available on the Jersey Financial Services Commission website.
Jersey companies were required to file a document known as an Annual Return each year which contains information on the shares issued and their legal shareholders, which may or may not correspond to the beneficial owners of the shares. In fact the vast majority of the names appearing in the annual returns are not of individuals, but of nominee companies holding legal but not beneficial ownership of the shares. This requirement has apparently changed slightly in the intervening period and the document which must be filed annually is now called something else, but this happened long after the relevant timeframe.
2004 Louis Owen was listed as owning 516,477 ordinary shares as of January 1 2004 in the Annual Return for 2004.
Also present in the public documents is a special resolution dated October 19 2004 involving the buyback of the 2,246,688 shares. The special resolution confirms that the share buyback involved the other two of the three largest Petrofac Tyler shareholders, and not Louis Owen. The number of shares sold for each is equal to the number of shares that they were listed as holding in the 2004 annual return.
2005 Louis Owen was listed as owning 516,477 ordinary shares as of January 1 2005 in the Annual Return for 2005.
From reading the brief of the former employee in the court case described above, I understood that there was a 40:1 stock split in September 2005. This is also confirmed from the public documents available from the registry. This implies that by October 2005, Louis Owen held 516,477 × 40 = 20,659,080 shares of the Jersey registered company Petrofac Limited.
The IPO
Petrofac ultimately went public in October 2005, with shares trading on the London Stock Exchange. The prospectus for the initial public offering includes Louis Owen on its list of the major shareholders who are not directors or senior managers which appears on page 131 of the document (I believe Owen retired not long before the IPO). It states that Owen owned 20,659,080 shares (matching the math above) as of September 19, 2005, and that his holding comprised 6% of the share capital of the company.
The prospectus gives an estimated range for the offer price of £1.80 to £2.30. According to news reports, the offer price was set closer to the upper bound of the range, at £2.15, and the stock price rose higher following the public offering.
The prospectus issued in advance of Petrofac Limited going public in October 2005 states that Lou Owen owned 20,659,080 shares in Petrofac Limited, comprising 6% of the total shares in the company. It was anticipated that he would sell 8,263,632 shares, or 40 percent of his initial stake, leaving him with 12.4 million (3.6% of the company)
Lock-in agreement
The prospectus reveals that Lou Owen agreed to participate in a lock-in arrangement which restricted his ability to sell or otherwise disperse shares for 36 months following the offering.
For the first 12 months he was restricted from transferring any shares. After 12 months, he was allowed to sell or transfer a cumulative total of 1/3 of the shares left over after the offering, which increased to 2/3 after 24 months; after 36 months, the final 1/3 was unlocked from restrictions and no restrictions remained.
Additional information on the lock-in agreement provided in the "additional information" section of the prospectus:
One thing which is not clear from the prospectus is whether Lou Owen was one of the shareholders who granted the underwriters the option to purchase additional shares at the purchase price under an over-allotment option. Without going into unnecessary detail, this is a way of trying to ensure that a stock’s price does not immediately dip below the initial offering price. If the stock performs well, trading above the offer price, then to cover short positions of the underwriter, these shareholders have agreed to sell additional shares at the offer price. From my reading of the above screenshots, this is compensated by a loosening of the lock-in agreement proportional to the number of shares sold under the over-allotment option.
I was unable to confirm whether or not Louis Owen sold shares under the over-allotment option, and if so, how many shares he did sell. From the annual returns, on January 1 2006 Owen was listed as holding 10,329,540 shares, whereas under the prospectus (see screenshot above) he was projected to own 12,395,448 shares. The discrepancy of 2,065,908 shares is exactly ten percent of his initial holding or a quarter of the 40% which was intended to be sold. The article above states that "shares equivalent to a further 10 per cent could be sold later if enough demand exists", which is a possible reference to the over-allotment option.
A year later, he is listed as holding 9,329,540 shares. On 2008, his name doesn’t appear, which would seem to imply he held less than 1% of issued shares, which was 3.45 million. However, since the concepts of legal ownership and beneficial ownership are distinct, this doesn’t necessarily mean that he deposed of this many shares. His holding could potentially have moved to one of the nominee accounts, for example.
For the 2006 annual return it’s a little less clear, since it’s possible that he may have sold additional shares under the over-allotment option. By my reading of the "additional information" section, it sounds like it may be the case that he could also have transferred stock to family trusts in his control, although such trusts would still themselves be subject to the lock-in. But I’m not a Jersey solicitor.
Owen formed a charitable donation in the name of himself and his wife, the Louis and Peaches Owen Foundation.
A review of public records in the form of the foundation’s Form 990s reveals that the foundation was funded in three years [2006, 2007, 2008] with an additional year with a small donation, 2010 ($425).
For 2006 and 2008, an attached Schedule B identifies stock in Petrofac Limited as the form of the noncash donation to the foundation by the Owens. The ticker symbol (POFCF) represents the listing on US OTC markets for Petrofac Limited, which trades on the London Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol PFC. Note that this is different from the rest of the post, since I’m using the Petrofac stock price on the London Stock Exchange multiplied by the GBP/USD exchange rate to calculate the value of a Petrofac share in dollars.
In December 2006, the Owens donated 700,000 shares of Petrofac Limited, the value of which was estimated at $5,514,250 ($7.88/share).
In February 2008, the Owens donated 1,000,000 shares of Petrofac Limited, the value of which was estimated at $8,640,000 ($8.64/share)
For 2007, there is no attached Schedule B that I can find on the Form 990s retrievable online for the Foundation. However, the revenue from contributions for the year was $6,441,120. My understanding of a list of short term sales attached as Schedule 1 is that there were a total of $11.6 million in sales for two batches of 700,000 shares in Petrofac Limited. As such, I believe that the proper number for 2007 is also 700k.
Owen also made a donation to build a heart hospital in Tyler, Texas, which was named after him and his wife. The donation was announced in October 2010 and valued at $18 million (Archive)
A review of Form 990s (see here) for the charitable foundation associated with the hospital suggests the grant was likely made at once, given the large increase in donations in the fiscal year ending June 2011 relative to other years. (Contributions/grants in Fiscal Year ending June 2012: $3.6M; FY ending June 2011: $19.9M; Contributions/grants in FY ending June 2010: $3.1M; Contributions/grants in FY ending June 2009: $1.6M)
Because the nonprofit associated with the hospital is not a private foundation like the Louis and Peaches Owen Foundation, less information is required to be divulged in their 990 returns. I’m just going to guess that this donation was made in the form of Petrofac stock as such a donation would likely be beneficial for tax purposes. Using the Petrofac stock price and the GBP/USD exchange rate around the time of the announcmement October 2010 I came up with a rough guess that the donation would require approximately 844,758 shares. If the donation wasn’t made directly to the hospital foundation in the form of stock, it’s likely that additional shares would have to be sold in order to cover capital gains taxes.
In total, about 2.4 million shares (assuming 700k were donated in 2007) in Petrofac were donated to the family foundation. According to the Form 990s, these contributions were valued by the Foundation at $20.6 million. Add in the $18 million for the hospital and you get to $38.6 million, a little under the $40 million claimed as of 2011. However, since the donations to the foundation were made in the form of stock, a volatile asset denominated in a foreign currency, it’s easy to imagine ending up estimating the total as "over $40 million". Even if some is missing, it sounds based off of that comment that most of the donations are included.
Dividends
A total of 21 dividend payments were made between the October 2005 initial public offering and Owen’s death in July 2016.
What's it worth?
What was the size of the Petrofac windfall for Lou Owen?
A decent place to start is simply multiplying the number of shares held by Lou Owen at the time of the IPO by the offer price, taking into account exchange rates and inflation. Ignoring any sources of wealth before October 2005, and only looking at the Petrofac stock, Lou Owen owned 6% of the company at the time of the public offering. This is 100% confirmed by reliable documents, as described above. After accounting for currency differences, that’s $78.5 million worth of stock at the offer price. This is a snapshot in time which ignores future investment income as well as charitable donations and taxes.
It’s also $122.8 million after adjusting for inflation, though obviously stock market returns would have greatly outpaced inflation:
Assuming (as I do) that the Petrofac stock constituted the overwhelming majority of his wealth at the time, the value of his estate at death will depend on the pace at which he sold Petrofac stock, the returns from what he reinvested the funds generated from sales into, and how much was spent/donated instead of re-invested.
Around 2012, the stock peaked at nearly eight times the price of the initial offering in October 2005. The below math shows how much his 20,659,080 shares would have been worth in 2012 if he had retained all of them through late April 2012. The estimated value includes the stock price plus cumulative dividends paid through late April 2012.
This is a hypothetical scenario that does NOT reflect reality (as the prospectus for the initial public offering confirms that Owen intended to sell stock as part of the offering, and he also made large donations to charity) but is meant to show how the value of the estate will depend on the speed at which he sold Petrofac stock.
Simulating the possible wealth generated by the Petrofac stock
I’ve coded simulations which account for the amount of stock Lou Owen was known to have held while deducting charitable donations, assuming that all donations other than the $18 million hospital donation went through their charitable foundation, that all donations including the hospital donation were made in the form of Petrofac stock, and that 20% of cash generated by sales of Petrofac were paid in capital gains tax and a further 10% held back for miscellaneous expenditures.
How the simulation works:
The simulation works as follows: during each 12 month period following the IPO in October 2005, a fixed percentage of the Petrofac stock (call it X%) is sold per year. This doesn’t include the 3.2 million shares which are earmarked for charitable donations.
The X% is sold in equal batches of 12 sales on the first trading day of each month, at the closing price. 70% of the cash generated by these sales (as well as the initial sale from the initial public offering) are converted from British Pounds to US Dollars and used to invest in Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Admiral Shares. There is no reason to believe that Owen himself invested in this, I just picked this because it tracks the overall US stock market.
Owen’s actual portfolio may well have generated returns which were significantly higher or lower than the stock market as a whole. This is not intended to be a prediction of what Owen’s estate WAS worth, but merely an illustration as to the magnitude of wealth which appears to be consistent with what is known.
Other notes:
Lock-in agreement and charitable donations When coding the simulation I’m making sure to deduct the confirmed donations (if there were in fact any donations outside of the one to build the heart hospital that did not go through the family foundation, these are not counted). This is a total of 2.4 million shares that went to the foundation and an estimated number of 844k additional shares as described earlier. While the lock-in agreement is still in effect, donations are made first. If the quantity of stock that otherwise would be sold over the course of a given 12 month period is higher than the amount permitted by the lock-in agreement, it’s substituted with the maximum amount of stock which can be sold per month under the agreement.
Dividends In the code, dividends are paid to all shares held, including the shares earmarked for later charitable donations. On the ex-dividend date, the payment from the dividends is used to invest in Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. Dividends are taxed at the same rate as stock sales at 30% (compare the 20% top tax rate for qualifying dividends).
Over-allotment option Because I’m not certain of whether this applied to Lou Owen’s shares or not, I have ran my simulations twice with the code adjusted for both scenarios. In the 1st scenario, it consists of the amount stated in the prospectus plus the additional 10% of the initial stake which is missing from Owen’s stake as of the next annual return, in the 2nd the amount of shares sold as part of the public offering is equal to the amount intended as stated in the prospectus.
If Lou Owen sold Petrofac stock by the rules described above, and was able to reinvest 70% of pre-tax cash generated from PFC stock sales and dividends, and those investments matched the overall stock market, the total portfolio derived from the IPO windfall could be worth from around $132 to $170 million by Owen's death in 2016, depending on the aggressiveness with which he sold Petrofac stock.
This is if he sold an additional 10% of his initial holding under the over-allotment option. If it did not apply, and he sold the number of shares listed in the prospectus, the figure would be around $145-194 million.
This is after setting aside a cumulative total of 3.2 million shares to be given to charity.
Example - Over-allotment option
This shows the example portfolios over time (with blue representing the value of Petrofac stock on the London Stock Exchange, denominated in USD, and green VTSAX).
Stock sales from the initial IPO are also reinvested.
I know I'm not supposed to be biased like that but if I'm made to endure that prancing around while I'm there on jury I'm voting ten thousand percent for the other side. I've heard of lawyers getting bitched out in court for their tie being in disarray slightly but that's allowed? Fuck off. You can't tell me it's not a fetish to inflict that on people and if you can't keep your fetish out of court to properly represent your client you should not be a lawyer. That's like Nick defending someone bottomless with a Balldo hanging out from under his shirt.
Nick’s grandfather, Lou Owen (full name Louis Walter Owen), father of Nick’s mother Celeste, was an important figure in an oil company called Petrofac that was founded in Tyler, TX.
I've posted about it a few times in the Lawtube thread. Andrew is a big fan of the Current Thing redpill YouTuber hoe_math. I've seen him superchat on livestreams on two different occasions.
Anyways, Branca, humble as ever, claims to have met his wife Emily on the streets of Boston as a rando in the aughts.
A couple of musings:
- Branca claims to be "Top 1%" in attractiveness metrics like height. How tall is Branca? Is he over 6' ? I always pictured him as having little man syndrome with his bravado, hotheadedness & Brooklyn roots.
- He claims to similarly be "Top 1%" in wealth, possibly at the time he met his current wife. This timeline conflicts with past Branca relationship disclosures that I recall. Specifically that Branca had wealth, lost it all to his ex-wife in the divorce, met Emily when he was broke (making her more trustworthy) & subsequently recreated his current consulting wealth a second time from nothing.
He's definitely top 0.1% in being an insecure little bitch, these are the kind of metrics unironic incels use (fucks sake Branca, you made me use that word, that's how bad you are), what's next? is he going to start about olympian jaw forms? about the "three sixes" like his brother in NIGtow Drexel does?
He could be 6'4 and he would still remain a sad little man, his internet e-buddy Nick certainly is proof that no amount of "metrics" will help you if you're a goddamn social retard. It is of little wonder Branca is a miserable fuck when his views of relationships with the opposite sex are tainted with transactionality to a level that would make an actual whore blush.
Audemars Piguet are the better pick for pointless flex watches, Patek Philippe if you want something more understated but still serving the function of pointless flexing, Rolex are for rubes.
Nick's always been like an Ethan Ralph to me: he is capable of hosting a good show, (and sometimes dropping a banger in the midst of things like Ralph's 'Now wait a minute, Matt NOOOOOO',) but it's the guests who ultimately make it entertaining. The one time I tried watching Ralph fly solo it was absolutely excruciating, and Nick is the same to me; he's just not funny or charismatic enough to carry an hours-long show on his own.
In Nick's defence, when you watched his stream it was for his knowledge as a lawyer, i.e. to "lawsplain the Interwebs." You'd tune into him to hear him give a lawyer's opinion on the topics du jour. Even if I didn't watch a lot of his solo streams, I disagree that he was unfunny because he could be funny in a casual, low-key way, and he's nowhere near as worthless of a solo host as Ralph is. It's just that he's decided people who subscribed to him are interested in him personally, when people watched because they wanted to be lawsplained to.
In Nick's defence, when you watched his stream it was for his knowledge as a lawyer, i.e. to "lawsplain the Interwebs." You'd tune into him to hear him give a lawyer's opinion on the topics du jour.
Again, that's fair. I guess I came into Nick's streams as he was sliding away from lawsplaining and more into the territory of late-night talkshow host. Or maybe it's just been so long since he was coherent I forgot what he actually used to be like.
- less disheveled than usual, whiskey comes out early
- "Still fishing around for the right schedule"
- not drunk yet, but already in full comedy mode; giggles at his own jokes, pulls faces, dramatic pauses, stares at the ceiling
- Trump subject to "add some levity", right into the abortion jokes
- freeform babbling; a sample: "Lot sold his daughters to a rape squad... that's the one righteous man! There's gotta be a teenager who'd do that... and the worst part... that teenager's children would be just the right age for Jared Fogle!"
- Nick brings up the topic of a 12 year old getting raped by a man she met on a dating app: "He hid the girl in his parents' house... I couldn't have a Playboy in my parents' house!"
- superchats; Trial coverage? Trials are great because you don't have to prepare for them. But Nick isn't home most days, sorry.
- Trump article; line-by-line reading as launchpad for more comedy
- more whiskey, more abortion jokes, random singing
- superchats; "Youtube memberships very much appreciated"
- more abortion
- superchats; Rumble flip
- "pee break", 8 minutes, no excuses
- superchats; alog Richardoteam is back:"Nick, are you trying to save your marriage?"; No, Nick just "kinda likes [his] spouse"
- back to Trump and abortion, Trump voice
- two hours in, he drew out the comedy again to avoid actual legal topics
- Nick brings up a Game of Thrones actor who is suing the DA for accusing him of being a pedophile; Nick says that "you got a lot of leeway in saying things like this"
- Crumbley case; fat jokes; eventually some basic legal commentary
- Runkle superchat pointing out that the Crumbley lawyer was bad; Nick doesn't have anything to say about it because he obviously didn't follow the case
- more comedy
- Nick finds out some CNN guy is named Elie Honig:"His name has ho and nig in it!"; pulls up a photo; calls the guy, who looks a lot more masculine than him, a lesbian
- Does the same with some black law professor mentioned in the article; this triggers a superchat:"He looks like one of your friends from Hedonism."
- Alec Baldwin/Rust
- Nick brings up Mini's First Time (2006) to support his assertion that nobody watches independent films; He seems to be rather enthusiastic about it:"Strong recommend"; IMDB tags:"stepdaughter seduces stepfather", "snorting cocaine", "lolita", "man has sex with teenager"
- Goes on and on about how 18 months is too little for that Gutierrez woman; this sounds vaguely like legal commentary until you realize he isn't really saying anything specific
- more comedy
"And that's the thing that people don't understand about God. He is a total a-log. He told His people to cut off their foreskin because it is WEIRD AND FUNNY. He got a man to attempt to sacrifice his own son as a JOKE, do Christians not get JOKES anymore? He had his adversary harass Job because it was FUNNY." --The Book of Rekieta
