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.

[Warm Lasagna]

A document has been added to Nick's case which was not there before. Apologies if this was already known. It's a "Statement of Rights," very boilerplate stuff. But it does contain Nick's signature, address, and phone number.

12291 51st St NE, Spicer, MN 56288
(320) 295-7513

EDIT: I tried attaching the file to this post, but for some reason it didn't work. I apologize for my technical incompetence.

Uh oh. This won’t end well.

 

[Burn It All Down]

I wonder how much the kids (and their friends) have figured out. Imagine the sheer humiliation and shame of knowing your parents are disgusting, degenerate pieces of shit, white trash wiggers, absolute garbage people.

I think at the very least they know something has changed and isn't right. I don't think they were degenerate enough to do lines while the kids were watching. But they probably exhibited erratic behavior in front of the kids.

 

[polakrobak99]

I was under the impression they can basically clone your phone and return the original to you while they dig through the clones files.

Is this something I dreamed up or am I retarded? I will accept either answer.

You're correct. They wouldn't go through your phone without "cloning" it first, for fear of accusations of tampering with evidence. All investigation is done on a "copy of a copy", while the "original copy" as well as the phone stay untouched.

 

[Fapcop]

That was a good episode! That was one of the ones that had Ashley Judd as Ensign Lefler. God, she was hot!

View attachment 6026929

See, @Fapcop, Ensign Lefler is something that's okay to fap too. Not Kayla or April. Do better!

Need I remind you that goddamn Wesley is in that episode? How on earth can you get anywhere near an erection with Wesley’s shiteating grin popping up every few minutes.

I will take my lashings for being a Kayla & April enjoyer thank you!

Heck, line the three mugshots up and you got the easiest game of fuck, marry, kill ever.

Cards on the table, big retard take: Nick's alcoholism was worse than the cocaine use.

Meh… Not so sure I wouldn’t agree. Alchohol brings a whole set of problems that you don’t have with cocaine. (And granted, vice versa.)

Guess it’s personality dependent. Some people can’t get off the bottle but don’t have problems quitting coke. For some it’s the other way around.

Given that Nick started with Liquor, I’d argue that’s his biggest problem.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Not in The Narnia Chronicles. The Pevensie children were a real 4 sibling set that died in a train crash as they were being evacuated from London during the blitz. It was apparently big news at the time and C.S. Lewis decided to memorialize them as the heroes and heroines in his stories.

I think in the final book everyone but the oldest sister are allowed to remain with Aslan forever rejoining all of their old long dead friends from previous adventures... because the kids were all actually killed in a train crash. Remember it's a happy story, for the kiddies!

 

[break these cuffs]

I wonder how much the kids (and their friends) have figured out. Imagine the sheer humiliation and shame of knowing your parents are disgusting, degenerate pieces of shit, white trash wiggers, absolute garbage people.

Everyone knows in a town of 1,200. You know everything you want to know in a town that size. The fact that it's online means anyone who knows the name Rekieta can learn it all.

 

[Fapcop]

I wonder how much the kids (and their friends) have figured out. Imagine the sheer humiliation and shame of knowing your parents are disgusting, degenerate pieces of shit, white trash wiggers, absolute garbage people.

Given that Nick was fired from teaching at his micro school, I’d reckon it’s an open secret.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

I am going to put this out here. If someone would.... it would benefit us all if you could not only get all the stuff off of Aaron's phone but get into Drexel's phone. There is a treasure trove of shit on both of these devices. I would encourage the police (or others) to get both of these devices because it would bring down a lot of people. HINT HINT>

Why do you keep doing this shit? It's weird. Stfu.

We are under no constrains at all in how we discuss Rekieta. This thread isn't a lawtube stream. I just don't think it is particularly fair criticism to shit on lawyers who made a career discussing legal topics for discussing the legal aspects of the case. The legal arguments being discussed aren't particularly persuasive and they lack a lot of information such as the actual search warrant affidavit, but speculating about these things is the biggest reason people follow people like Legal Mindset in the first place. Wanting them to go into dramatics about how terrible of a person Nick is, is silly.

I've yet to hear really good, crisp legal assessments on this (which at bottom is not a particularly complex situation, legally speaking, so far), though I saw references in the last pages to one (legal mindset? Idk; don't follow many of them, for reasons below). But from what I've seen I'm not seeing purely dry legal analysis, but more taking sides in the guise of its being a "legal" view.

There are many ways a lawyer can frame things to make it clear they are speaking in terms of legal probabilities, factors for consideration, etc., neutrally, and offer thoughts on which way they think it will fall with ifs and x, y, and z.

That's different than THIS IS BULLSHIT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF LAWS ON THE BOOKS ABOUT FIREARMS AND DRUGS IT'S A CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION THEREFORE HE IS INNOCENT garbage.

These online lawyers also need to do better at knowing what they're talking about, getting it right, explaining it well (what and why), and being very clear when they are talking about technical "facts" and literal "facts."

Also different than the "IF" there were actually drugs in the house idiots. That's not legal analysis, nor any kind of legal assessment of the "it must be proven in court" variety. Yes, there is a difference between facts/falsehoods in the actual sense, and legally proved/unproven allegations, admissible/inadmissible evidence, and relative relevance or weight of admitted evidence. Duh. But they need to explain that repeatedly and avoid creating confusion.

It is a literal fact that - barring Hillary Clinton-level conspiracies to take down Nick Rekieta, powerful man, lol - there were drugs in the house. You can think of possible ways to get evidence of that thrown out - was the search legal/how many possible cracks in procedure/situation could you find for a toehold? You could think/talk about ways to challenge the accuracy of evidence down the road - are the weights correct, was the gun loaded, how far under the bed was it, was the safety on - not necessarily elements of any charge in particular, but perhaps useful in painting a picture, or in thinking about ways to get out of it in motion practice, trial, or negotiation. That's not the same as "he didn't do it."

Lawyers should make that clearer than clear. But instead they make personal opinion statements without clarifying they are not speaking as a lawyer or giving an informed professional assessment of the situation, and vice versa. They should be as careful to say that they aren't suggesting he's innocent/not guilty, both factually and legally, just as much as they aren't suggesting he is.

Lawyers speaking publicly about law should also bother to familiarize themselves with the laws of the jurisdiction at issue, or some key definitions in a specific situation. Half of them haven't known what kinds of people are mandatory reporters, or bothered to acknowledge explain the mn sentencing guidelines (or get it close to right), neither of which take a lot of work to understand in broad strokes, particularly if you have any legal background and so know where to look for likely ballpark accurate/ source information, even if you have no criminal law experience. It's embarrassing to see, really. And yes, it's something of a strategy to avoid the appearance of a giving an actual legal opinion or advice. But seeing lawyers completely wing it, especially badly, is reckless and embarrassing.

And then you have the Barnes types with a drum to beat, and despite being wrong on or ignorant of or not caring about the facts here, just shout their usual mantra (2A, in this case). Tedious and dismissable out of hand. But people will give that weight without recognizing that for purposes of this situation right here and right now, that is a political goal, not a useful legal perspective. Especially when you won't or can't talk about "OK, so what if your Constitutional challenge (*which is not a challenge to any facts, just a challenge to the validity of the statute) fails?". And if a guy like that is not explaining that his opinion on the 2A is a) not about facts and b) 99.9999% not likely about whether Nick is likely to have to defend it and how he would fare/outcome, then he's not a responsible lawyer and doesn't love the law or respect his profession.

Addendum on Barnes: just now seeing the conspiracy idiocy. What a crock. Ridiculous on its face. Both in general and because Nick Rekieta is a small fish in a small pond, and his 28 cases of his entire career most certainly did not put the fear of God into the ptb of Kandiyohi County. Pure fantasy. I may need to hate-watch or hate-read him (in archives, preferably), because if what's posted here is accurate for what he's said, he should be ignored completely, and anyone signing onto what he's said should get some air.

Why are all these lawfags pretending that at any point in time in their lives having guns and drugs at the same time isn't an automatic trumped up federal felony? Weed is basically legal everywhere and it's still a federal felony to be in possession of guns and weed at the same time. You also can't even legally buy a gun from an FFL if you admit to simply USING weed on the 4473 form.

(I don't think you're getting the real gist of what "trumped up" typically means.)

And law's law until it isn't. You may not like it or think it's unfair, but plenty of people also think a $40 ticket for deciding not to feed the meter $3.00 is also unfair. But if you legitimately get that ticket and refuse to pay, instead going to court to tell a judge you shouldn't have to because public parking should be free, you'll just wind up with a judgment against you for the ticket and possibly some court fees tacked on. You broke the law; take it up with the legislature or the appellate process if you think there's a question of law.

There's nothing requiring Federal and state laws to be aligned. The Federal government has chosen not to object to states' legalizing marijuana, and the Feds rarely prosecute for anything short of trafficking, but they haven't made it legal Federally, either.

But on your specific point, the Supreme Court in 2022 (Bruen) rejected the analytical standard in Heller (2008 ) and opened the door for a determination that 922(g) (the relevant statute on firearm ownership and weed possession) is unconstitutional by reframing the analysis to one of whether a restriction has historically been applied. A few courts have ruled on the question and are in appeals. Appeals are stayed until the Supreme Court rules on U.S. v Rahimi, set for this year. I believe Rahimi is about the prohibition on firearm ownership by people with a DV protection order, but the analysis would be the same.

 

[dustnight]

Or one of the kids' phones got left and he's using that.

"Dad... why is there a photo of someones dick on my phone?"

 

[Anasûrimbor Kellhus]

"what would you do if this was josh"

what a fucking take. If only he know about how the farms felt about josh after the cheese incident and sticker notification incidents. If josh degenerated into an alcoholic coke fiend there'd be no end to the shit he got from this site, if it still remained up, lmfao.

 

[Mourning_Cloak]

I agree that:

• therapists, counselors, psyches, etc. are not infallible and are very much subject to the same internal biases that everyone else is
• there are many out there who are retarded and extremely politically motivated
• the standards for reporting alarming behavior is broad

But if every therapist was so gung-ho about reporting anything reportable then the prison system would be even more overrun, a lot more people would lose kids to the state, and a lot more people would've been committed to loony bins by now. It is very common for people to have very negative, even violent thoughts that are unwanted. They know these thoughts are wrong. These are often a symptom of things like (real) OCD. Suffice to say someone admitting to having these aren't a reason to immediately call the 12.

There's absolutely nothing out of place in finding the statement "I didn't open up to a therapist because I was afraid they might call the police on me" a very concerning one. I can't help but wonder what sort of thoughts this guy was or is having. But maybe that's just me I guess.

 

[BPD Gunt Rider]

I think at the very least they know something has changed and isn't right. I don't think they were degenerate enough to do lines while the kids were watching. But they probably exhibited erratic behavior in front of the kids.

At the least, the 17 year old boy knew. My only question is how many of them were also fucking April.

 

[break these cuffs]

I agree that:

• therapists, counselors, psyches, etc. are not infallible and are very much subject to the same internal biases that everyone else is
• there are many out there who are retarded and extremely politically motivated
• the standards for reporting alarming behavior is broad

But if every therapist was so gung-ho about reporting anything reportable then the prison system would be even more overrun, a lot more people would lose kids to the state, and a lot more people would've been committed to loony bins by now. It is very common for people to have very negative, even violent thoughts that are unwanted. They know these thoughts are wrong. These are often a symptom of things like (real) OCD. Suffice to say someone admitting to having these aren't a reason to immediately call the 12.

There's absolutely nothing out of place in finding the statement "I didn't open up to a therapist because I was afraid they might call the police on me" a very concerning one. I can't help but wonder what sort of thoughts this guy was or is having. But maybe that's just me I guess.

Gonna take a stab in the dark and say Kurt wants to murder people, probably women, over the fact that women can tell he's an autistic incel and stay far, faaarrr away from him.

 

[Harm]

There's absolutely nothing out of place in finding the statement "I didn't open up to a therapist because I was afraid they might call the police on me" a very concerning one

Yep, that tells me they're either a child abuser, a pedophile, a killer, or some other egregious criminal, or adjacent to one of those things.

EDIT: Wait, I was still catching up with the thread and didn't realize this was about Kurt refraining from opening up to a therapist. What the fucking fuck? That's disturbing.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

I get he wants to talk about that but then saying he's being completely objective while analyzing his friends case is laughable. He can't see his own bias.

He can. That’s why he asked other lawyers or people or places like this to counter it. So that the legal coverage stands a chance at being fair.

he's acting like he has all the facts and it took 3 other lawyers to come in and tell him that him and barnes don't have all the facts.

To be fair, that’s the entire point of the legal streams. To present arguments and then test them. Which is what ghey did. He wasn’t acting like he had all the facts at all, he was rightfully pointing out that a lot of the people talking about the legal issues weren’t using the legal facts as important to the court and that was causing people on lawtube to miss the fact that you test out every possible legal avenue thst might help. And the place that was happening the most no one was actually watching.

"kiwifarmers need to give me legal proof and arguments".

His reason for asking that is as he says he wants you to rip apart every defence Nick has and he’ll then bring that to a larger audiance as he says

I’d honestly think a Kiwi putting together a timeline with proof would help and sending it their way just so they can catch the audiance up on stuff.

Cards on the table, big retard take: Nick's alcoholism was worse than the cocaine use.

It was. The drug use would never have happened if not.

 

[Autistic Orson Welles]

"A mental health professional may disclose information only to medical or law enforcement personnel if the professional determines that there is a probability of imminent physical injury by the patient to the patient or others or there is a probability of immediate mental or emotional injury to the patient." Tex. Health & Safety Code 611.004.

knowing Kurt, he almost certainly said this because he's suicidal

 

[RodgerDodger]

Someone needs to ban the neghole pozzer
View attachment 6026846
X

In this case we'll allow it. Just so what we can see what it does to Dick.

 

[WhimsicalTrolli]

Rush Limbaugh or RDJ didn't abuse children during his pill addiction, Joe.

 

[TherapyMan]

That seems extraordinarily broad and open to wide interpretation (and potential abuse) on the part of the therapist, unless those terms have specific definitions elsewhere in the statute. "Emotional injury?" What?

The wording of the statute—particularly it being oriented towards mental or emotional harm to the patient and not other individuals—seems to me as referring to the context of intellectually disabled / elderly abuse by a caregiver and/or neglect. Failure to render proper care is a common type of abuse that's not strictly physical. It's important to note that this statute falls under a special provision relating to mental illness and intellectual disability.

In the rest of the code, "emotional harm," "mental injury," or "emotional injury" are used in the context of neglect and/or abuse by a provider. Consequently, I think it's a fair read to believe that "mental or emotional injury" contains that limitation.

 

[Yandex Captcha Solver]

Nick has finally disabled the almost a week old live chat, disabling history. He started a new one and dropped this message.

You can repost them Nick. Fuck that judge, charges will be dismissed soon due to the obvious setup by the DA, Police, and Judge Fischer