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

[repentance]

He'll argue that since there are fringes on the flag that the court has no jurisdiction over him. He will argue GROUNDZ....

If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, just argue.

 

[feral cat #6385]

"Nobody got fucked on the sex cross."

 

[Gas Station Nachos]

Barnes is saying the search warrant raises 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment questions. Many of the comments think this is complete horseshit.

 

[repentance]

My theory is that the report by the pastor specifically mentioned that one of the kids told him something like “Mom never cooks dinner for us any more”.

Even if neither parent cooked there were still better options than spaghettios and snacks. There are plenty of frozen dinners and pre-prepared meals which only need to be heated in the microwave.

It wouldn't surprise me if the nanny cleaned the house and fed the kids.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Could this just be a reference to Nick and/or Kayla getting high all the time? I think it's unquestionably emotionally abusive for small children to have to worry about their parents as a consequence of their drug use. Even if you aren't the one that's using, could leaving the children in the care and custody of a parent who's completely wasted while you like in your pit and watch Star Trek repeats count as abuse here?

Don't know if it's been discussed or not, but is it possible Kayla's charge is specific to the circumstances of the police visit?

If they were there for reported abuse by Nick, he'd have a charge. If they found something long-running wrong with the kids, both Rekietas should have one. But if they opened the door and found something in progress, they only have Kayla on the hook, because Nick was out of the house at the time. If April was causing it she'd have a charge too, but she was released.

I think someone previously said you can catch the charge by exposing a kid to something bad. If that's the case, and the cops found Kayla in a bad state that was affecting the kids' welfare, then she's the only one they have direct evidence against.

 

[repentance]

Hell, Nick uses a walk in safe for his streaming setup, he should have just had a good steel door installed there, that way he could prevent the pesky kids from bothering him when he was hanging out with the corner demon.

Wasn't the vault at the old house.

...then doesn't it have to mean that Nick is alleged to have been beating them, diddling them or emotionally abusing them somehow?

It means that Kayla knew about and turned a blind eye to physical or sexual abuse by somebody. If that somebody is Nick, then it seems odd that they have enough evidence to charge her with that specific offence but have not charged Nick with the abuse.

I actually don't think Nick was actually dealing drugs, I just think he is an extremely heavy user. I might change my mind if they actually do upgrade the charges.

The smaller baggies need explaining. Even if they were to give to friends and not to sell, that's still supply.

 

[HootersMcBoobies]

Barnes is saying the search warrant raises 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment questions. Many of the comments think this is complete horseshit.

I watched this stream live for the first time in a couple of months, curious if they'd cover this. Both Viva and Barnes consider Nick a friend. I use to like Barnes, but over the past few months I've come to realize he treats his audience like a jury and is constantly trying to convince us. He's shilled for Peter Thiel's involvement in Rumble, stating James Corbett (Corbett Report) is wrong about Theil. Sorry Barnes. I know you like that Rumble promotion, but I trust Whitney Webb and Corbett's integrity way more than yours.

Barnes does bring up some interesting points about how Rackets has gone up against a lot of the local judicial system and about how your normally get a "wellness check" before a warrant. Sorry Barnes, once again .. they city knew this guy was high profile. They're not going to take a chance.

I think Barnes does have a case over the firearms. If they were in the bedroom, and he had some empty casings, big deal. Hell if he's taken the kids to learn firearms and shoot responsibility, even less of a deal.

Barnes goes big on defense of Rackets, and speaks to us like a jury if he was issuing closing arguments. I don't entire disagree with his whole "Child/Family Services is evil" direction (he's taken this stance before) as I've known social workers, in multiple states, who've quit or gone freelance because of all the issue and power trips they saw. DCFS or CPS or whatever your city calls it, does often overstep bounds. At the same time ... in the western world, we've entered an era where the social contract says you don't 100% raise your kids; the State requires some things. You can raise your children to love Muhammad or Jesus, but you can't raise them to work in a machine shop at age 12, or train them to work in a brothel. I honestly wonder if Barnes is far-libertarian enough to believe parents should have those rights

The comments during the stream were great too; many talking about the kids and irresponsibility. Even Bearing talked about how he shouldn't be accusing someone of being a potatophile on a drunk stream during an active civil case.

The stream was interesting from the legal aspects and constitutional aspects, but it also reinforces how much of a blowhard Barnes is.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

There's something I have been wondering about, concerning your right to remain silent and the jury not being allowed to take that into account:
What happens if I talk to the police about certain things and remain silent on others. Can the jury take the partial silence into account and assume that what I refused to say was bad for me? Or would that violate the 5th amendment.

No

to be clear: this depends on if you are in custody (i.e. under Miranda doctrine).

If not- if you have volunteered to talk to police- the jury CAN take selective silence into account (Salinas v. Texas 2013) absent an explicit invocation of one's 5th amendment rights. So make sure you actually say that you are choosing to remain silent and not just say literally nothing...

 

[PotatoSalad4711]

I think Barnes does have a case over the firearms. If they were in the bedroom, and he had some empty casings, big deal. Hell if he's taken the kids to learn firearms and shoot responsibility, even less of a deal.

I haven’t watched it, so I have no idea what he’s trying to argue, but the problem here is that he was in possession of a firearm while using a controlled substance. Yes, once you start using drugs, it is technically illegal for you to have a gun, doesn’t matter that you purchased it legally and have all the paperwork. That’s what he was charged for.

If he’s talking about the CPS investigation, well, it’s always tricky having guns and kids in the same house. Once CPS is on your ass, they’re going to go through your life with a fine tooth comb. However, Nick’s child neglect/endangerment charge is only related to the drugs (so far). So, once again, not sure what this guy is on about.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

If he’s talking about the CPS investigation, well, it’s always tricky having guns and kids in the same house. Once CPS is on your ass, they’re going to go through your life with a fine tooth comb. However, Nick’s child neglect/endangerment charge is only related to the drugs (so far). So, once again, not sure what this guy is on about.

All that said, it looks way better the more precaution you are taking. At least do the barest fucking minimum and have them on a high shelf out of view, and not under your bed. Then maybe you're just a negligent idiot, and not a criminally negligent idiot.

But yeah. If he had them in a gun safe, you can't deny the state would look a little silly rattling their sabers about it.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Thread tax: I know judges are required to be unbiased and impartial. With Nick and Kayla’s criminal case being heard by the same judge as in Nick’s civil defamation case, does one impact the other?

Unless she recuses from one of them, I don't see how one impacts the other. If she recuses from say his criminal case, he could make the argument that she should recuse for the same reasons (though they may not be entirely applicable) from his civil case, and certainly vice versa.

then doesn't it have to mean that Nick is alleged to have been beating them, diddling them or emotionally abusing them somehow?

No.

If there is some weird issue with that warrant then isn’t that then an illegal search?

You have to challenge that in court if there is any.

The thing is presumably there was a period of time between 'Mr Rekieta can we come in, we have a warrant' and 'we are breaking your door down' where Nick could have reevaluated the severity of the situation and didn't do so.

There was none. The door was broken down before the warrant was shown as alleged by the police.

More case events from the court site:
View attachment 6024063

This is all the things he requested in the arraignment hearing. This is not new.

Kayla the crack whore or one of her bulls gets pissed a kid is begging for food. She throws some cocaine/drugs at the kid in anger and the kid inhales enough/swallows enough they get sick.

If Kayla did it, she would not have been charged with mere negligence.

I’m not a lawyer or informed about the law so again I’m just speculating, and I don’t know if “she gave her kids 2mg weed gummies so they could sedate the kids” would be the same crime under the “physical/sexual abuse of a minor” law that she’s being charged with.

If only someone had posted an explanation of what those terms mean.

My question is wouldn't the mere words like "stop it" possibly be considerable form of defense against the charge. I never allowed it I was demanding they stop. type of thing, on top of I was scared to get physical?

In the situation you described probably not as there is no evidence the abuser is hostile to her, and in fact seemed to outright ignore her.

If they want her to testify, have they already given up their leverage by dropping charges?

Depends on their deal. They can always charge her before the statute of limitations runs out, and if she renegs, they can always try "lying to police" charge, or any other charge. In the famous words of Justice Gorsuch, "Oh, we've got lots of statutes. The criminal law books are -- are replete."

Barnes is saying the search warrant raises 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment questions.

Until we see the actual warrant, I don't see 1st and 4th amendment questions. 2nd, maybe, if you want to try novel interpretations of 2nd Amendment that the Supreme Court has given indications they do not want to pursue. Barnes is usually pretty good, so maybe he sees something I don't.

Don't know if it's been discussed or not, but is it possible Kayla's charge is specific to the circumstances of the police visit?

Oh, fuck, good call. I never considered this.

 

[MadStan]

Would it not be an irony for Nick to stream about his own Trial and then be done for another charge for profiteering from his own crime.

I like to think it could happen.

 

[MooseGump]

Would it not be an irony for Nick to stream about his own Trial and then be done for another charge for profiteering from his own crime.

I like to think it could happen.

I'm fairly certain he joked about that once during either the Rittenhouse trial or the one with the nog going nuts in the court, now his buddies are gonna profit off of it while sweeping it up

 

[Not Really Here]

Until we see the actual warrant, I don't see 1st and 4th amendment questions.

That's the mandatory reporting required of clergy, which has been found to be a violation of the 1st(freedom of religion, and speech) in some states, and the 4th follows from that, no mandatory report, no basis for the warrant.

2nd, maybe, if you want to try novel interpretations of 2nd Amendment that the Supreme Court has given indications they do not want to pursue

Barnes very much wants to apply novel interpretations of 2nd Amendment, in most cases. I find him to be weak on the 2nd, because he doesn't endorse McNukes.

 

[MunsterCheeseJr]

I think the point of making the police break down your door is that it makes it near impossible for the police to claim that they were invited in. That means in court their probable cause or warrant had better stand up or else much or ALL of what they have found may be in admissible.

Personally I think that once the police have a warrant for your address, it is silly to make the cops break down the door. I don't think it will buy you much in court compared to the damage done to your property.

 

[World in Scarlet]

Barnes is saying the search warrant raises 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment questions. Many of the comments think this is complete horseshit.

The fuck does the moon landing have to do with Covid?

 

[waffle]

Barnes is saying the search warrant raises 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment questions. Many of the comments think this is complete horseshit.

Barnes is copeing. It's possible there's problems with the warrant, but there's literally no reason to think that. He seems to be jumping to the conclusion it was based entirely on a citizen report, when in reality the fact they took five or six days to move mames it look like they investigated independently.

I agree under Heller the the most they can probably legally do is say you can't have a firearm in public while intoxicated, but the possessions issue predominates the case. The gun thing is a misdemeanor, for crying out loud.

I agree with Potentially Sean that the different child abuse charge is likely a typo, but if not I suspect it has to do with her allowing the older kids to "discipline" the younger ones and the state thinks it went to far.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

That's the mandatory reporting required of clergy, which has been found to be a violation of the 1st(freedom of religion, and speech) in some states, and the 4th follows from that, no mandatory report, no basis for the warrant.

Right, and I get that perspective, but I don't see it. Suppose Nick can challenge it on First Amendment grounds, what's the result? The warrant would probably be upheld anyway, as there is no reason to believe he wouldn't have reported anyway. Even if there was a 1st Amendment question, which I disagree on, Minnesota (and Supreme Court) caselaw suggests that they can still use the drugs as evidence.

Spoiler: lots of quotes

"Evidence obtained during a search conducted in reliance on a search warrant that is later declared invalid as not based on probable cause, may still be admissible at trial if the officers conducting the search had an objective good faith reliance on the facially invalid warrant," "and the Fourth Amendment has never been interpreted to proscribe the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons", "The Fourth Amendment contains no provision expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands, and an examination of its origin and purposes makes clear that the use of fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure works no new Fourth Amendment wrong," "Once the warrant issues, there is literally nothing more the policeman can do in seeking to comply with the law, and penalizing the officer for the magistrate's error, rather than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations," "Suppression of all evidence obtained in reliance on invalid search warrants would effectively punish the officers executing the warrant for the issuing judge's mistakes"U.S. v. Bacote, Crim. File No. 05-234 (MJD/SRN) (D. Minn. Nov. 22, 2005), United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

As it stands, whether or not the warrant was issued wrongly doesn't matter, as long as the Police relied on the warrant in good faith, the evidence may be admissible. I just don't see any relevant 1st Amendment or 4th Amendment question. Irrelevant ones? Sure, I can see them. But relevant ones?

Barnes very much wants to apply novel interpretations of 2nd Amendment, in most cases.

Look. I am all for increasing the protections of the 2nd, but Nick would have to think realistically. The 2nd Amendment argument (which currently seems unlikely) would be costly, and the funds would be better spent defending against the drug charges, as without them the gun charges immediately fail. Unless he plants to concede on the drugs, and go to SCOTUS with the same 2nd amendment arguments the court implied in Bruen that it doesn't want to hear.

The fuck does the moon landing have to do with Covid?

Covid was taken from the Moon, don't you know? How can Covid be real, if the Moon landing wasn't real? I jest, of course.

 

[Kier Starmer]

This case is so messed up, you have some lawtubers planting seeds that there were drugs planted. Yeah to a rich white guy, sure.

I think the child charge on Kayla was a typo honestly like unlawful thinks because the charge before was neglect. Nick is going to keep Kayla in an iron grip now because she could in theory legally go rogue and they could pin it all on Nick. A legal counsel could have told Kayla to file for divorce already and I think that is coming sooner rather than later. I do think she was swept up in this because Nick is all she has known most her life, did she do bad things yes but is she as bad as Nick christ no.

It sounds like the body cam footage is going to get released this week too which will be very interesting, apologies I have no legal experience but the lolcow cases like this are fascinating, fantastic work @Useful_Mistake

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It sounds like the body cam footage is going to get released this week too

I haven't heard about this. Can you tell me more?

fantastic work @Useful_Mistake

Thank you. I'm pleased that you like this thread (though, Null deserves quite a bit of praise for the initial idea)