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.

[AncientPhosphur]

I don't know what Nick got up to yesterday, but it was probably more than enough to put him over the hard drinker threshold (15 a week) pointed out by @East_Clintwood. And that's just what he consumes on camera.

For God’s sake why cant you prudes just let a man enjoy his drink? Cheers Nick!

 

[Pagan Min]

I hope he has to respond to his own dumb, drunken bullshit he's probably already forgotten saying in a blackout period. Just watching him being cross examined on the absolutely idiotic shit he says every night would be hilarious, the first time he's been funny since he started pretending to be a standup.

I just want to see him respond to himself denying he said shit he obviously said, immediately followed by him being asked to "refresh his memory" with a video of him saying what he just denied saying.
View attachment 5959919

It'd amuse me to no end if, should this occur, he makes this highly-punchable face on the stand & the judge allows the jury to line up & bitch-slap him for a half hour or so... Ah, I can dream, can't I?

Edit: fixed typo

 

[Iron Hamster]

Back in the day, he would have covered the Karen Read trial and made bank. The corruption that's going to be exposed will be unreal. You can see some of it already and they haven't even gotten to the heavy hitter witnesses yet.
The judge is already in the tank for the prosecution with some of the head scratching rulings and not allowing oral objection arguments.
Someone objects (defense has more than prosecution) and she immediately either sustains (most) or overrules without even knowing what the objection is. It's really bizarre.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

Not allowing oral objection arguments.

Most courts don't want you doing that. The jury shouldn't be hearing legal arguments.

The judges pretty much know what the objection is without it being stated

 

[Pitbull Victim]

American Beauty (~20m), one of the actors married a 16 year old

Nick's wet-brain is mixing up his coom fantasies - Doug Hutchison (played the dickhead guard in The Green Mile and the stretchy mutant from the X-Files) married Courtney Stodden when he was in his 50s and she was 16. Chris Cooper, the gay Nazi from American Beauty that Nick kind of just smeared as a chomo, is apparently married to a woman his same age and they've been together like 40 years.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I hope he has to respond to his own dumb, drunken bullshit he's probably already forgotten saying in a blackout period. Just watching him being cross examined on the absolutely idiotic shit he says every night would be hilarious, the first time he's been funny since he started pretending to be a standup.

I just want to see him respond to himself denying he said shit he obviously said, immediately followed by him being asked to "refresh his memory" with a video of him saying what he just denied saying.
View attachment 5959919

It'd amuse me to no end if, should this occur, he makes this highly-punchable face on the stand & the judge allows the jury to line up & bitch-slap him for a half hour or so... Ah, I can dream, can't I?

Edit: fixed typo

Can you imagine if Nick's legal adversaries discovered the cache of weaponised autism already collected by his detractors? He would be crying for mercy as clip after clip were played in court for the jury. I am just thinking of the careful timelines that have ben constructed here in factual megaposts.

Any sane person would walk very circumspectly with this Sword of Damocles constantly over their head...

Back in the day, he would have covered the Karen Read trial and made bank. The corruption that's going to be exposed will be unreal. You can see some of it already and they haven't even gotten to the heavy hitter witnesses yet.
The judge is already in the tank for the prosecution with some of the head scratching rulings and not allowing oral objection arguments.
Someone objects (defense has more than prosecution) and she immediately either sustains (most) or overrules without even knowing what the objection is. It's really bizarre.

Forget trial streaming that he hates one month, then LOVES the next...

What about Sony and HellDivers II? This kind of entertainment law used to be what the gamers and nerds wanted to hear about. It was classic content, but not he will probably cancel the show on Monday and make a brief mention Tuesday how he hasn't seen it, but will look at it, then do a late take sometime next week.

 

[Howling Janny Dog]

Can you imagine if Nick's legal adversaries discovered the cache of weaponised autism already collected by his detractors? He would be crying for mercy as clip after clip were played in court for the jury. I am just thinking of the careful timelines that have ben constructed here in factual megaposts.

Could work for Randazza too.

"Your honor, I would like to submit the entirety of Elissa Clips as evidence that my client is an absolute drunk retard who isn't even fit to run his nightly shows properly, let alone stand trial."

 

[Particle Bored]

There is, however, an admission from April that they are swingers.

Not too get all non-practicing-lawyerly, but is there not a copy of that clip that doesn't have the audio glitches at such convenient spots?

Why the f would anyone get a pineapple tattoo unless it meant something?

Like cherries, maybe some boomer played too many slot machines but a PINEAPPLE?!

I'd maybe give a pass if there was some demonstrated connection to Hawaii, otherwise...

superchat: how to reconcile pedo hate with affinity for Lester in American Beauty?; Nick wants to argue about the age of the girl and the state the film is set in; can't find the info, analyzes Lester instead; Nick is in his element, goes on for about ten minutes (~1h8m)

"It really depends on the child state, doesn't it?"

Montagraph is an unhinged retard who probably likes sucking little boys' cocks... based on ten years of history... based on the entire internet... based on his snuff films"

Hey Nick, what might the phrase "motion to amend complaint" mean in the context of your case?

 

[Tubby Aardvark]

Nick has an unfinished ceiling

So you're telling me there is a chance that there is a real life ceiling cat in his house right now. Amazing.

 

[AnOminous]

Most courts don't want you doing that. The jury shouldn't be hearing legal arguments.

The judges pretty much know what the objection is without it being stated

That's a faggot argument. If you don't make objections, you surrender your client's rights, because if you don't make the objection, it isn't preserved for appeal.

You can't appeal an objection you never made.

 

[Iron Hamster]

Most courts don't want you doing that. The jury shouldn't be hearing legal arguments.

My wording was poor. I meant the reason for the objection like relevance, asked and answered, hearsay, etc. and go to sidebar if there is an argument.

 

[Captain Manning]

Can you imagine if Nick's legal adversaries discovered the cache of weaponised autism already collected by his detractors? He would be crying for mercy as clip after clip were played in court for the jury. I am just thinking of the careful timelines that have ben constructed here in factual megaposts.

Oh dude, that is exactly what we did during Weebwars. We archived the shit out of everything and made sure it ended up in Ty's hands. Something Ty and Nick asked for and were seemingly appreciative of. Run a search. Or ask anybody that was there (like me). I think there's even a picture of the massive pile of archived material Ty printed out in preparation for Vic's case. He didn't collect that. KF did.

In the end, it was all for naught, because Ty is a retard, but Nick is well aware of the weapons grade autism KF can bring to bear. He counted on the Farms to help deliver Vic a win.

That's what makes this whole thing so stupid. I can only imagine this whole "probably" thing is for what they call "internal consumption" (READ: his Locals idiots).

 

[trash cat]

Not too get all non-practicing-lawyerly, but is there not a copy of that clip that doesn't have the audio glitches at such convenient spots?

Don't know fren... I didn't edit it beyond extraction - I just downloaded the video as a 720p .MP4 file and then cut out the continuous relevant section with ffmpeg, specifying a start time, end time, and output filename.

ffmpeg -hwaccel auto -y -ss 03:30 -to 04:15  -i "input_clip.mp4" -c:v copy -c:a copy -avoid_negative_ts make_zero "output_clip.mp4"

The Elissa clip ^^^ above is what I extracted from (timestamp 3:30 to 4:15), and I assume she got it from the Rekieta YT channel, live stream capture, or the Rekieta / Steel Toe members section.

Hope this helps

 

[AltisticRight]

Could work for Randazza too.

"Your honor, I would like to submit the entirety of Elissa Clips as evidence that my client is an absolute drunk retard who isn't even fit to run his nightly shows properly, let alone stand trial."

>Your honour, the defendant has a Kiwi Farms thread with nearly 3600 pages. That is a testament to his severe faggotry. I rest my case.

 

[Captain Manning]

Most courts don't want you doing that. The jury shouldn't be hearing legal arguments.

The judges pretty much know what the objection is without it being stated

That's a faggot argument. If you don't make objections, you surrender your client's rights, because if you don't make the objection, it isn't preserved for appeal.

You can't appeal an objection you never made.

@prolapsed_cranium isn't saying you shouldn't object. I think what he's saying is the judge doesn't want a long drawn out legal argument as to the basis of your objection in front of the jury.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think he's right, because I have heard lawyers simply say "objection," with no reason given, and the judge says "sustained." That seems to indicate the judge knows the basis for the objection and agrees without you having to say anything further.

If the judge is confused as to the nature of your objection, they or you would probably ask for sidebar to suss out why you are objecting.

 

[Chazzed Up]

Starting to feel like Nick deserves his own subforum at this point, he's more active and has just as much of a lore web of orbiters to warrant it as Ralph does.

 

[daffodils]

I just downloaded the video as a 720p .MP4 file and then cut out the continuous relevant section with ffmpeg

I recently figured out that you can save a step by doing the cutting directly in yt-dlp:

Spoiler

--download-sections REGEX       Download only chapters that match the
                                regular expression. A "*" prefix denotes
                                time-range instead of chapter. Negative
                                timestamps are calculated from the end.
                                "*from-url" can be used to download between
                                the "start_time" and "end_time" extracted
                                from the URL. Needs ffmpeg. This option can
                                be used multiple times to download multiple
                                sections, e.g. --download-sections
                                "*10:15-inf" --download-sections "intro"

Also loving that we’ve reached the lolcow stage where he is effortlessly puppeted by trolls in the chat to sperg out on any chosen topic

He brushes off most troll chats in his usual passive-aggressive style. But the law suit is either getting to him or he's so sure of winning that he thinks there's no downside to ranting about it. Or he's just extra drunk lately.

 

[trash cat]

I recently figured out that you can save a step by doing the cutting directly in yt-dlp:

Nice! Thank you.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Oh dude, that is exactly what we did during Weebwars. We archived the shit out of everything and made sure it ended up in Ty's hands. Something Ty and Nick asked for and were seemingly appreciative of. Run a search. Or ask anybody that was there (like me). I think there's even a picture of the massive pile of archived material Ty printed out in preparation for Vic's case. He didn't collect that. KF did.

In the end, it was all for naught, because Ty is a retard, but Nick is well aware of the weapons grade autism KF can bring to bear. He counted on the Farms to help deliver Vic a win.

That's what makes this whole thing so stupid. I can only imagine this whole "probably" thing is for what they call "internal consumption" (READ: his Locals idiots).

Oh, I am well aware. I was around the Rekietaverse, but not the Farms much at the time. I meant if someone sues him based on evidence gathered here (bonus: direct citation) or if Schneider waves a pieces of paper print-out during this case. THAT would be a massive chicken coming home to roost.

Starting to feel like Nick deserves his own subforum at this point, he's more active and has just as much of a lore web of orbiters to warrant it as Ralph does.

I am not sure that he warrants one quite yet. We would need some more full-time cow orbiters. Drexel is off the internet in his dox-to-enter-DISCORD, SteelToe lacks a thread, Coomalot and LawTube have forsaken him and fucked off---not being worthy of individual threads, and I do not see lumping Sean in as fair.

The board would need to be filled out with a population of threads first.

 

[Iron Hamster]

@prolapsed_cranium isn't saying you shouldn't object. I think what he's saying is the judge doesn't want a long drawn out legal argument as to the basis of your objection in front of the jury.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think he's right, because I have heard lawyers simply say "objection," with no reason given, and the judge says "sustained." That seems to indicate the judge knows the basis for the objection and agrees without you having to say anything further.

If the judge is confused as to the nature of your objection, they or you would probably ask for sidebar to suss out why you are objecting.

When lawyers watching the case are questioning why those immediate rulings are being made, without explanation when it should be overruled, there's an issue.
In this case, the cop whose house this killing took place at is also a local EMT. Other local EMTs know this. One firefighter EMT went to school with his daughter and was at the scene. (Turns out this firefighter EMT was 'asked' to come in for questioning by the cop EMT's brother with the state trooper friend of the family, who when asked if the homeowner would see any problems from a dead cop lying in his front yard, the trooper simply said 'nope'.) They aren't even allowed to ask if they know this much less question why the cop never went out to render aid. Prosecution objects and is sustained immediately.