State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Rekieta, Kayla Rekieta, April Imholte

[Peaches the Wonder Cat]

You know damn well they let her go so they could put a tail on her for the next 2 weeks to see where she runs off to.

This county has 40K people in it. You think they're going to spare someone to tail her for two weeks?

 

[Diabeetus69]

This county has 40K people in it. You think they're going to spare someone to tail her for two weeks?

That's adorable....thinking they need an actual human to track your whereabouts.....
<squeezes your pudgy little cheeks>

 

[waffle]

This county has 40K people in it. You think they're going to spare someone to tail her for two weeks?

It's an easy detail and they probably have nothing going on. There's also a decent chance most of the people involved in this hate Nick's ass personally.

 

[Low IQ Doctor]

Since people have been discussing the children, it seems relevant to note that the charges regarding the kids are different between Nick and Kayla. The other two charges/penalties for drugs and firearms are identical.

Spoiler: Full list of charges/penalties

Nick's charges/penalties:
View attachment 6021203

Kayla's charges/penalties:
View attachment 6021202

Nick's charge/penalty pertains to endangerment concerning sale/possession of substances:

View attachment 6021164

Kayla's charge/penalty pertains to endangerment concerning neglect and knowingly permitting physical/sex abuse:

View attachment 6021163

Just something to keep in mind going forward.

Reposting this here since it's being talked about on the main thread. Worthwhile to point out that the order for detention for Kayla also cites (a) and (a2) but utilizes the same exact description used for Nick's charge under (b2).

 

[Mike Stoklasas Spock Ears]

Nick and Kayla have an attorney now other than Nick. Kristen Elizabeth Pierce.



ETA: never mind lol

 

[Napoleon III]

The fact that Nick had several small bags of blow in various places, including two safes, bag sealing equipment, etc, might lead the cops to tack on those charges if Nick isn't willing to flip on whoever his upstream dealer is.
If all that coke was just for him and his wife and his whore to share, it would all be in one container, hidden up in the closet of their bedroom.
He was dealing....calling it now.

Nick doesn't necessarily need to be the one dealing. Has he really ran out of money? Is dealing drugs like this really going to be enough to pay for his lifestyle? There is also a thing where once people earn a lot of money they are not willing to work as hard to earn money as they already have it.

I could imagine him however serving like a marketing guy. He introduces people to this stuff and he gets free stuff in return. That also means Nick takes the heat for introducing people to coke but doesn't do the actual process of selling. Whether Nick is or isn't THE dealer I imagine this is a skill he is very good at.

Very good post definitely made me go hmm and tied together a bunch of details that I unconsciously ignored.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Nick and Kayla have an attorney now other than Nick. Kristen Elizabeth Pierce.

No they don't. That's the prosecutor.

 

[Third World Aristocrat]

I have a question for those with legal expertise.

We all know that Nick is an egotistical bastard, and probably an awful client to deal with.
If he chooses a lawyer to represent him, can the lawyer impose restrictions to Nick for his representation? As: "stop saying stupid shit online about the case or I'll fuck off".
Or at the moment that they accept Nick as a client, the lawyer is almost "married" to him, and has to deal with all Nick's spergery without any escape?

 

[break these cuffs]

I think so too. No reason to have all that other shit around if you’re just using. Someone should ask Aaron about this, if anyone would know it would be him.

Aaron is a lying snake, so take what he says with a grain of salt. His wife already has an HRO on him and April over stuff he said on the show, and his parents stopped speaking with him over April. He says his relationship with his family is repaired and it's the best it's been since the divorce with his first wife now that he came clean, but he has every reason to lie to her about how he endangered her kids by taking them to a junky's house and doing drugs repeatedly. There are also inconsistences in his stories already.

My suspicion was that Nick gave April, Aaron, or both coke in baggies to take home, or they took little baggies with them to party at Gay 90s/gloryholes/etc. Nick and Kayla also had those little coke bullets to take with them, which is what makes me think the baggies were for friends.

 

[AnOminous]

Think Nick will have sobered up enough to realize that doing this Pro Se and representing April, Kayla, and himself seems a bad idea?

It's a virtual certainty he won't be allowed to do that. If he somehow did, he could probably be outright disbarred for it.

If he has knowledge of the home, the goings-ons of the family, statements from the kids, and so on, it's going to be very difficult to attack the warrant.

Even if the pastor completely made it up and it was all lies, it would still constitute probable cause (depending on what exactly he said). The exclusionary rule only applies to police or judicial misconduct. If they acted mistakenly but in good faith, the evidence would still be admissable. As Cardozo opined in a dissent on the subject: "Should the criminal go free because the constable has blundered?"

A lot of people think not (including some conservative members of SCOTUS) but that is the current legal view unless and until SCOTUS decides otherwise.

 

[Low IQ Doctor]

We still have 3 months until the next hearing. If they're going to get another attorney, they've got time. They will probably have to involve another lawyer to solely - at least on paper - represent Kayla, especially if they are truly being charged differently.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Yeah...I think it's because she doesn't "officially" live there. Nick made a big deal out of emphasizing to the cops that she was "just visiting" and, therefore, had nothing to do with anything they found in "his" house. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows she was in on it, but the cops really had nothing to charge her with other than being in the "wrong place at the wrong time". If I'm visiting my brother for the holidays and the cops bust in cause he has a dead body in his freezer, they're going to arrest me at first, but they aren't gonna charge me with murder.
However, I am getting heavy "GoodFellas-Babysitter" vibes off this. She was the "innocent" friend, who, in reality, was the mule. I just wonder whether she was transporting it out or transporting it in.
You know damn well they let her go so they could put a tail on her for the next 2 weeks to see where she runs off to.

Didn't the narrative of the search mention that a couple credit cards with April's name on them were found with the scales and stuff, probably used to straighten her lines? She might be called back in at some point.

I have a question for those with legal expertise.

We all know that Nick is an egotistical bastard, and probably an awful client to deal with.
If he chooses a lawyer to represent him, can the lawyer impose restrictions to Nick for his representation? As: "stop saying stupid shit online about the case or I'll fuck off".
Or at the moment that they accept Nick as a client, the lawyer is almost "married" to him, and has to deal with all Nick's spergery without any escape?

Eternal Lawyer Answer: It Depends.

Criminal counsel can't withdraw quite as freely as civil counsel can (a motion to withdraw as counsel can be denied due to imminent court appearances where a lack of counsel would deprive the defendant of their constitutional rights), but they can file a motion to withdraw and simply state "For professional reasons, I must withdraw," and have a good chance of it being granted.

 

[Pelican Bones]

Unless April was found to have something illegal on her person during a search, it's unlikely a prosecutor will bother trying stick her with anything found at the house. It would be a nightmare to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court. They might hang the charges over her for a while in case they want testimony or something.

 

[AnOminous]

If he chooses a lawyer to represent him, can the lawyer impose restrictions to Nick for his representation? As: "stop saying stupid shit online about the case or I'll fuck off".

Yes. So long as any limitations on representation are made in advance (and best practice is that it be in writing), they're enforceable. And if a lawyer has reason to believe his services have been retained for the purposes of enabling fraud or crime, the lawyer can withdraw for cause. Additionally, irreconcilable differences on strategy can constitute cause, subject to the discretion of the judge ruling on whether the motion to withdraw is valid.

There are more limitations when a lawyer is contracting with a layperson, but as a lawyer himself, anything Nick agrees to will likely be binding unless absolutely prohibited (like for instance agreeing you cannot sue for future malpractice in advance).

The relevant RPC is 1.2(c):

A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is
reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.

A lawyer is generally presumed to be able to give informed consent, while a layperson may be more likely to claim credibly that they were bamboozled by a wily shyster.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

It's an easy detail and they probably have nothing going on. There's also a decent chance most of the people involved in this hate Nick's ass personally.

what prosecutor wouldnt want to be known as that guy/gal that threw the most sucessful US youtuber in jail for drugs? Bet hey're itching to nab nick since hes an e-celeb like that goofy prosecutor for rittenhouse.

 

[Iron Hamster]

Nick and Kayla have an attorney now other than Nick. Kristen Elizabeth Pierce.

View attachment 6021383

ETA: never mind lol

He needs Ty Beard to apply pro hac vice amirite? Is Vic Lasagne running a go fund me for Nick?

 

[newuser131]

let's say, hypothetically speaking, rekieta manages to get the evidence tossed out due to some legal shanagans and the case gets dismissed due to lack of evidence. is it still possible for nick and kayla to lose custody of their children to cps? can cps just ignore the coke and guns in proximity to the children?

 

[repentance]

Josh mentioned on the Kino Casino stream that he had a lawyer (I assume Hardin) look into Nick being a trust fund brat. He said he found no real proof of that being the case. Take it for what you will. Nick's money situation might honestly just be what's left from Depp and Rittenhouse.

Multiple trusts exist. I only started following Nick's thread again recently and someone had found his grandfather's will. A pdf of it is in this post.

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/nicholas-robert-rekieta-rekieta-law-nickrekieta.53871/page-3983#post-18427149

The will created multiple trusts and is a bit convoluted, but Celeste and her brothers have broad power over the trusts created for each of them (there are other trusts as well). Provision was also made for them to remove Ty from any roles assigned to him in the will.

Nick has never earned the kind of money which would allow him to build the house they live in now, so it's reasonable to assume that money from the grandparents' estate contributed to that cost.

A big question now is whether Celeste will try to "rescue" Nick from the consequences of his action or whether she'll force him to stand on his own two feet.

As far as who tipped off the pastor, we had a newbie recently who seemed to be showing an unwarranted amount of interest in Nick's kids and who posted links to church events. It would not have been difficult to forward the pastor clips from Nick's streams which created a level of concern sufficient to generate a mandatory report.

 

[Third World Aristocrat]

As far as who tipped off the pastor, we had a newbie recently who seemed to be showing an unwarranted amount of interest in Nick's kids and who posted links to church events.

I was not aware that it was certain that someone tipped off the pastor, instead of him reporting all by his own volition and observations. I was even less aware that it came from kiwi farms.
Or is that just conjecture IF someone has tipped him off AND IF this person originates from kiwi farms?

 

[Lubby Smith]

let's say, hypothetically speaking, rekieta manages to get the evidence tossed out due to some legal shanagans and the case gets dismissed due to lack of evidence. is it still possible for nick and kayla to lose custody of their children to cps? can cps just ignore the coke and guns in proximity to the children?

Criminal and family/juvenile cases are completely distinct legal proceedings that take place in different courts with different procedural rules, burdens of proof, etc., so a CPS case could proceed regardless of the outcome of the criminal case.

I assume the Scandinavian prudes at Kandiyohi County CPS will bring a case, if they haven't already. Since the kids are with relatives, they may not have done an emergency removal filing.

The way CPS cases typically work is that a petition is filed against the parent(s), who can either (1) fight the case or (2) admit/stipulate to the abuse/neglect.

If a parent disputes the allegations, there's no "trial." There's an adjudicatory hearing where a judge (no jury) decides if there was abuse/neglect by clear and convincing evidence (lower burden than proof beyond a reasonable doubt). You can guess how that typically goes, especially when there are many suitable guardians available.

If the judge finds that the abuse/neglect is proven, the parent is fucked. "You don't even think you did anything wrong but it has been proven that you abused/neglected your child, so there's no possibility of fixing you. Parental rights terminated."

So, kind of like how innocent people take plea deals to mitigate risk, many parents will strategically choose option 2: admit they abused/neglected their kid and get a parenting plan where they have to do a bunch of bullshit (rehab, drug testing, parenting classes, supervised visitation) to show they're fixed. If all goes well (lol), 12-18 months later they get full custody back.

These proceedings are confidential and, generally, nothing from them can be used in criminal cases. We won't know anything directly, but we'll have clues. If the criminal case gets held in abeyance, for example, it could be because there's an agreement to dismiss/reduce the charges if the Balldos make an admission in the CPS proceeding and successfully complete the parenting plan. That's what I'd shoot for because it would allow Nick to save face publicly ("see, the charges were dropped, I dindu nuffin").