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

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

The point Barnes was making is that mandating a clergy member report, has been found in some jurisdictions to be a violation of the 1st amendment rights of the congregant.

Again, a pastor or anyone else can voluntarily provide a report. That's not a 1A concern for a congregant. For the reported person's purposes, unless the clergy member asserts that they reported solely because they were compelled by the state to do so (i.e., not as a matter of conscience or otherwise) there's no 1A issue.

And even though you're being a jackass, I would be interested in your citations.

 

[Obnoxious Asshole]

Then it was only a small child who had to answer the door and, obviously under orders from Drugkieta, refuse to open it, and then watch cops bash the door open and enter violently.

He's never seeing those kids again without supervision. The damage done to these kids psychologically must be massive. The fact that his daughter in the face of police didn't freeze means she's seen some shit go down in that house. I'm wondering if the younger kids just have been kept from attending homeschool. That could be the initial contact. Kayla lies to the homeschool about either attendance, nutrition, or a sudden bruise (or all of them, since the only certainty in this shitshow is it will get worse). CPS calls Kayla to confirm that yes, the Cokeitas are spinning pure bullshit. There's Kayla's extra charge. So maybe it was already being prepared for a warrant when the pastor shows up with his report, everyone decides to get this done now. Enter the Thursday afternoon entertainment and the Cokeita/Cokergheist saga.

 

[Barry McKockner]

You don't need "exigent circumstances" to get a warrant. "Exigent circumstances" is for non-warrant-covered actions.

6 days seems reasonable time for investigation, getting the facts on paper, getting to a judge, organizing the plan, etc.

What investigation? The poster I replied to said all they needed was the report, not an investigation. My point was that there needed to be more than just a report to justify a search warrant.

You should follow the conversation before replying.

 

[cybernurse1998]

MN LEO in most areas tend to be earnest about these things.

That said, we also don't know if the (assuming real) report we've seen a snap of was the first or the 50th.

6 days seems reasonable time for investigation, getting the facts on paper, getting to a judge, organizing the plan, etc.

I have 0 faith in the mandatory reporter system anywhere. I had interacted with all of the children from one family as part of my job. I interacted with all of the older sisters for years. The youngest sister told me that Step Dad had done horrifying things to her and her sisters. She even had the Chesse Pizza that her step dad had used her phone to record. Turns out this dude had been doing this for years, with the knowledge of the mom.

I made the call, nothing happened. Mom and step dad were questioned, all the kids were taken to medical facilities, but that was it. No search warrant, eventually a year later the guy was investigated. Even the courts refused to give their biological dad custody, judge still rulled that mom (who knew exactly what her husband was doing for YEARS) was the sole custodial parent.

After seeing that and then seeing how fast the police responded with a warrent to a guy who (made a sarcastic comment) pissed off a cop's wife. I lost all faith in the system.

I still hold that the prosecutors or DA, or a judge was looking for a reason to arrest Nick. The mandated reporter call/ drunk off his ass streams were the exact excuse that they needed.
Nick was a dumbass who pissed off the local justice system (by shit talking them) and them gave them every reason to arrest him.

 

[Not Really Here]

Again, a pastor or anyone else can voluntarily provide a report

Irrelevant to the actual case.

And even though you're being a jackass, I would be interested in your citations.

Look retard, I was telling someone else what Barnes meant, ask Barnes for citations.

 

[Turbo Hornbag Hervez]

Heaven forbid any of those kids test positive for drugs, for example. (Yeah a kid eating one of Mommy's special gummies is not an opposite accident. It's a hard felony.) What exactly was going on with that pack of depraved degenerate sex addicts in that house? It's a situation where the kids being ignored, unfed and neglected is one of the better options.

I tend to think this is the case; perhaps one of the younger children got into some substance/drug and when Nick had that couple nights of cancellations to “watch” or observe someone in the house, one of the kids was at risk of ODing and instead of bringing the child to the hospital, they stayed home and watched the kid instead (preventing CPS involvement). This would certainly be something to discuss with the pastor as I’m sure the eldest child has now become the de facto adult in the absence of actual patents.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Irrelevant to the actual case.

No, it isn't. Prove the pastor didn't report voluntarily. Far more likely voluntary than the contrary. Especially as he hasn't said word one about anything, much less that.

Look retard, I was telling someone else what Barnes meant, ask Barnes for citations.

As expected.

Exhibit A to my comments in the other thread about the irresponsibility of online lawyers and their unblinking followers.

 

[Not Really Here]

No, it isn't. Prove the pastor didn't report voluntarily. Far more likely voluntary than the contrary. Especially as he hasn't said word one about anything, much less that.

This is what happens when you don't read the thread.

Exhibit A to my comments in the other thread about the irresponsibility of online lawyers and their unblinking followers.

Nigga what?
Person A-"I don't get X"
Person B-"he meant Y"
Person that didn't read anything(you) "inchoate sperging."

 

[Balldo's Gate]

The point Barnes was making

It's wrong. You can tell it's wrong because the grifter's lips were moving.

 

[Not Really Here]

It's wrong. You can tell it's wrong because the grifter's lips were moving.

"Implicates the first amendment" is absolutely correct.
That said, courts routinely hold Constitutional "make no law" and "shall not be abridged" actually mean "Congress can do anything they want."

 

[Balldo's Gate]

"Implicates the first amendment" is absolutely correct.
That said, courts routinely hold Constitutional "make no law" and "shall not be abridged" actually mean "Congress can do anything they want."

Taking the guy seriously is a good indication you aren't a serious person I didn't read or watch what he said and I don't care about it to be clear. I hope Nick did though and I wish Balldoman luck in taking this all the way to the Supreme Court, I'm sure it'll go great.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

This is what happens when you don't read the thread.
View attachment 6028128

Nigga what?
Person A-"I don't get X"
Person B-"he meant Y"
Person that didn't read anything(you) "inchoate sperging."

You fucking idiot. Where does that show he wasn't reporting voluntarily?

Hint: it doesn't.

Stating, "I have a mandatory reporting issue/ I want to speak to an officer" is not evidence showing he was not speaking voluntarily. It's an acknowledgement and information he is a mandatory reporter, which merely sets the situation for the person answering the call.

This is stupid. You are stupid.

 

[Not Really Here]

Taking the guy seriously is a good indication you aren't a serious person I didn't read or watch what he said and I don't care about it to be clear.

Okay Reddit.

Stating, "I have a mandatory reporting issue/ I want to speak to an officer" is not evidence showing he was not speaking voluntarily.

It's right here bro.

I have a mandatory reporting issue

Please read things.

 

[filthypenguin]

You guys are talking past each other, I think. My understanding is that if Nick would need to get the pastor to testify that he'd never have made the report if it weren't for his status as a mandatory reporter, and then Nick could maybe possibly have a chance at getting the initial report thrown out because some other states supposedly have found that making clergymen mandatory reporters unconstitutional. I find it unlikely that the pastor would say that he only reported Nick because the government made him and that he would have been fine with child neglect otherwise. It's probably moot, because even assuming Nick is able to get all that to happen, the warrant would have needed to be granted based purely on the pastor's report, which is unlikely, because if it were it'd probably have just been a CPS visit not a warrant.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Okay Reddit.

It's right here bro.

Please read things.

You appear to be in the intelligence range of Barnes' target demographic.

 

[Rent Tin]

You guys are talking past each other, I think. My understanding is that if Nick would need to get the pastor to testify that he'd never have made the report if it weren't for his status as a mandatory reporter, and then Nick could maybe possibly have a chance at getting the initial report thrown out because some other states supposedly have found that making clergymen mandatory reporters unconstitutional. I find it unlikely that the pastor would say that he only reported Nick because the government made him and that he would have been fine with child neglect otherwise. It's probably moot, because even assuming Nick is able to get all that to happen, the warrant would have needed to be granted based purely on the pastor's report, which is unlikely, because if it were it'd probably have just been a CPS visit not a warrant.

This is exactly the situation. Nick really has no say in the matter.

 

[Resting Bitch Face]

Good post from an attorney about why Barnes is a Morin. Long, but interesting info about the charges.

https://x.com/chadcmulligan/status/1795261444117987730?s=46

 

[PotatoSalad4711]

It's pretty clear from the look of them that they've both been doing a lot of cocaine. I wouldn't be surprised if they were going through multiple grams per day. If Nick has been buying large quantities like that for a while, he might have already been on law enforcement's radar. Someone who was selling to him might have gotten pinched and threw his name out to law enforcement to get some kind of deal, particularly if Nick is buying quantities large enough to look like a dealer himself.

This has been my personal theory for a while. Mainly because it would be infinitely funny if the police already had eyes on the dealer and wanted to know what this white goofy-looking motherfucker was doing buying large amounts of coke in Minneapolis (that’s the other thing, Minneapolis isn’t an insignificant drive for him, it’s about 111 miles one way).

I guess we’ll find out, and I hope it’s soon because people like Barnes are making my eye twitch.

Has anyone considered April being caught beforehand with drugs on her own and rolling over? It's not uncommon for a low-level user to have their charges shelved in exchange for cooperation in arresting their supplier. That would explain why they knew right where the drugs were and the warrant wasn't focused on the kids. The CPS involvement might have shifted the timeline up but otherwise be unrelated.

Also, when they do raid a site they always arrest the informants along with everyone else to prevent immediate retaliation. The original arrest records are also typically sealed for the same reason. This would explain how she almost immediately walked out and why she's went silent after the raid as well.

Edit: I forgot to mention that they will sometimes wait for the main suspect to be out of the house to execute the warrant. This prevents them from trying to dispose of evidence or going for weapons when they come to the door.

I don’t know what happened with April after she was arrested, but I highly doubt she snitched before that. She’s in a weird, dare I say co-dependent, relationship with Nick. She’s in the middle of a divorce, is an addict, has no job I guess, moves in with her lover (and his wife) who is also her drug provider. I don’t think she would say anything, at least not before the raid.

 

[Not Really Here]

My understanding is that if Nick would need to get the pastor to testify that he'd never have made the report if it weren't for his status as a mandatory reporter

No. As the grifter lawyers have repeatedly said, the initial report doesn't matter, the affidavit attached to the warrant request is what controls the legality of the search, and nobody has that yet. Furthermore even if you took a swing at the report on 1st amendment grounds, it would probably have to be the kid, or the pastor.

Alogs don't understand a first year law "issue spotting"/"Issue identification" exercise, and everyone is going to be disappointed when the lab weight of the dope comes back slightly under 25 grams, and the dope charge is reduced.

 

[filthypenguin]

No. As the grifter lawyers have repeatedly said, the initial report doesn't matter, the affidavit attached to the warrant request is what controls the legality of the search, and nobody has that yet. Furthermore even if you took a swing at the report on 1st amendment grounds, it would probably have to be the kid, or the pastor.

That's what I was trying to say, I just don't know your fancy lawyer words like "affidavit."