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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?


  • Total voters
    1,268
  • Poll closed .
It may not be so cut and dry (at least I hope not). Nick was trying to be noble and rescue April by saying this. He said it at the scene and again when being interviewed by police. However, Kayla told family services that April was the live in nanny. They made sure to draw attention to this in the report. Also April’s credit cards were found with the coke.

But yeah, the “it was April’s strategy” is not looking plausible for Nick.

I doubt that will ever be their strategy.
Regardless of whether or not April actually claims the coke was hers, it was still found in the possession of Nick and Kayla by being on their property with their knowledge.
If I put a bag of coke in the glove compartment of your car and YOU get pulled over and the cops found it, all the "It's not mine, it's my friend's" excuses you give the cop will be ignored; The coke is in your car, the coke is, by law, yours.
Same with the house. If it wasn't in April's pocket or April's purse and unknown to Nick and/or Kayla, it is by law the property of Nick/Kayla.
 
i appreciate the skepticism since so many people really are letting their confirmation bias and groupthink run wild here, but i nevertheless disagree with your pessimism.

Is this case dependent on April, the drunk streams, and the powdered donut nose?
We can only hope that April provided reliable information before she was arrested. It's strange, yet perhaps a good sign, that she was released so quickly. Anyway, Nick will claim that the drugs belonged to April and Kayla. Kayla is so delusional she might even be manipulated into supporting that claim. She's likely suicidal atp. I hope April was smart enough to have video or audio evidence of Nick's direct involvement.
no. the case is not dependent on that. only the search warrant was partially dependent on that, and as has been repeated many times at this point, the evidentiary bar for a search warrant is probably the lowest among all others in the legal process. the case is largely dependent on the evidence they found in the house when it was searched, and none of that looks good.

Does AnnaTSWG have any information on Aaron dealing drugs, particularly MDMA, at the comedy club?
Aaron is known to like MDMA. If true, this complicates everything. He has many enemies from his radio show and possibly within the comedy community. Regardless, his behavior since the arrests has been comically horrifying. Most people here don't believe half of what he's said, and this is a community that wants to believe him. Imagine what a judge or jury would think.
i really don't think it matters what anyone says about aaron about drugs he may or may not have done or bought months ago. there's no case to be had there. unless they get a warrant to search his house and find ounces of drugs and guns, i see no feasible way that aaron could be criminally implicated in any of this. he's still a deeply flawed cuck and loser, but the type of case nick is dealing with is a different universe from anything that could be said against aaron from a legal perspective.

Can the child neglect charges stick?
It's doubtful. Despite everything, the kids were involved in debate, soccer, church activities, dance, and theater. Nick mentioned that the eldest had been awarded National Merit Scholar. Despite his issues, Nick managed to get them where they needed to go. CPS will monitor them, but the criminal charges probably won't hold.
well, one assumption i'm comfortable making is that the members of the community who came forward to report the neglect probably have a better sense of those kids' wellbeing than we do. just because we don't know the full picture doesn't mean there's nothing there. for all we know the kids' situation could be worse than we're thinking.

if i were to pour some cold water on it though, to me, the biggest source of skepticism for the neglect charges is the timeframe. if the coke bender and downward spiral really only began some 6 months ago, then you could make a case that this is a recent development spurred by poor decision-making that is generally out of character compared with their previous child-rearing practices, which were generally good. at least that's one somewhat promising line a defense could take.

Finally, will he get any prison time?
We know that's unlikely. Will the baggies amount to less than 25 grams? Possibly. As others have noted, first-time offenders rarely get any time in Minnesota. If it's less than 25 grams, it'll likely result in a slap on the wrist.
i doubt he'll see prison. i'm 50-50 on whether the amount at the end of the day will be 25 grams or more, and i don't think it matters very much except on paper. either way, as a nonviolent first time offender, i think he'll get some sort of probation arrangement.

If any charges are to stick, we are left hoping that April has real evidence and that the former nanny will speak out. I pray that Detective Pomplun has more information than we do.

Any ideas on what that information could be?
i don't agree. april will have a minor role if any. what matters is the fact that they found ~25g of coke in the master bedroom where nick admitted both he and his wife sleep in. if april comes in and says, "yup. i did the drugs, which he bought, with him, and i was with him when he bought that batch" then of course that's great for the prosecution, but it's just one brick among many, many others, the biggest brick being the brick of cocaine found in the squalid filthy crack den
 
EVEN if Nick dumbfucks his way through self-representation and tries to fight everything AND gets convicted by a jury of ALL COUNTS, the judge AND prosecutor are likely to have already dropped anything with mandatory minimum sentences, and then the judge will sentence him to probation or something.

This is common when a defendant goes batshit and won't be smart and cop a plea, they don't actually "throw the book at him" if it's a first offense, they just roll their eyes and rant at him and then sentence what the plea probably would have been anyway.

For Nick and us, this is the most interesting time of his life. For the judge and prosecutor, it's just another Thursday.
I've posted the chart from the MN Sentencing Guidelines before. The presumptive sentence for a first-time offender on a second-degree possession charge is 48 months suspended. That's before either plea-bargaining or the prosecution seeking enhancements.

A couple decades ago, MN made a policy choice to favor long probation and treatment over incarceration. Based on that choice, MN doesn't have lots of prison space because it didn't get built. There just aren't enough cells to impose long sentences on a lot of offenders.

We're not likely to see a Balldo jail arc this time around. If he gets his act together just a little--and by that I mean hiding his criminality--we may never see it. All Balldo has to do is be smarter than a street nigger and not draw any attention to himself.
 
I've posted the chart from the MN Sentencing Guidelines before. The presumptive sentence for a first-time offender on a second-degree possession charge is 48 months suspended. That's before either plea-bargaining or the prosecution seeking enhancements.

A couple decades ago, MN made a policy choice to favor long probation and treatment over incarceration. Based on that choice, MN doesn't have lots of prison space because it didn't get built. There just aren't enough cells to impose long sentences on a lot of offenders.

We're not likely to see a Balldo jail arc this time around. If he gets his act together just a little--and by that I mean hiding his criminality--we may never see it. All Balldo has to do is be smarter than a street nigger and not draw any attention to himself.
I wonder of alcohol would be banned as part of a long parole. As well, first time offenders could still receive a one year (minus a day) at judge discretion
 
I wonder of alcohol would be banned as part of a long parole. As well, first time offenders could still receive a one year (minus a day) at judge discretion
It could be, but remember there's 100% guaranteed another silent case occurring at the same time as this public one - the CPS inquiry. Both cases will know about each other and may impose separate restrictions.

This, of course, assumes that Nick doesn't just actually give up the kids so that he can move to LA. At that point, CPS has no power over him.
 
So, Jail is certain then
Yeah, but it will take awhile. Street niggers are surprisingly persistent in their criminality.

Public Defender: Good news, Jarvalicious. The prosecutor decided to let you plead down from a First Degree Assault to a misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct with a stay of adjudication if you remain law abiding for a year. Just stay out of trouble for a year and the case goes away.

Jarvalicious: U B da greatest loyer evah!

TWO WEEKS LATER

*YOU HAVE RECEIVED A CALL FROM A CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION. PRESS 1 TO ACCEPT*

Jarvalicious: U gots to get me out man! Dey popped me for ridin' wid muh crew. I swear dat fent ain't mine and dat girl said she wuz sixteen!
 
I'm trying to play things out with some obvious spitballing. For 42 years this fucker has weaseled out of every bad spot he's ever found himself.
Sure. Are you suggesting Nick and Kayla are not also junkies? Because they are.
All three of them are junkies. Who is the smartest junkie? Nick, and that's the problem.
The investigation could still reveal more
From your fingers to god's ears. I certainly hope so.
i really don't think it matters what anyone says about aaron about drugs
All three could say Aaron got the drugs and dumped them there should there be any indication that he's dealt. Where did these drugs come from? The Imholtes are closer to the city.

My effort is a thought experiment to see if he can weasel out of this. I am trying to predict Nick's strategy. If he goes with Barnes's, he's confirmed retarded, yet here we are.
 
All three could say Aaron got the drugs and dumped them there should there be any indication that he's dealt. Where did these drugs come from? The Imholtes are closer to the city.
This would be an absolutely retarded strategy. So dealer Aaron dumped 3k of product at Nick's house with 3 coke fiends running around? Even if all 3 of them said that the DA would go "yeah, sure, whatever junkie."
 
Everyone out there assuming we're trying to get the footage to score internet points. In reality we're doing it because it might be really funny.
"For the lols" has fallen by the wayside in the Grift-O-Sphere. Now it's all about that dolla dolla.

I've posted the chart from the MN Sentencing Guidelines before. The presumptive sentence for a first-time offender on a second-degree possession charge is 48 months suspended. That's before either plea-bargaining or the prosecution seeking enhancements.

A couple decades ago, MN made a policy choice to favor long probation and treatment over incarceration. Based on that choice, MN doesn't have lots of prison space because it didn't get built. There just aren't enough cells to impose long sentences on a lot of offenders.

We're not likely to see a Balldo jail arc this time around. If he gets his act together just a little--and by that I mean hiding his criminality--we may never see it. All Balldo has to do is be smarter than a street nigger and not draw any attention to himself.
The sentencing guidelines were written without a thought to "What happens if we get a real piece of shit".
 
My effort is a thought experiment to see if he can weasel out of this. I am trying to predict Nick's strategy. If he goes with Barnes's, he's confirmed retarded, yet here we are.
Then you have to go even further into his mindset, because you hit the nail on the head with that specific phrasing. Keep in mind that the three key players are drug addicts and highly unpredictable. They were all willing to live in a dirty house with little to no food and five kids that they ignored to the point of dropping them off to school and activities in dirty clothes. Multiple people attempted to help them before it escalated to an arrest and were rebuffed. In their minds they were doing everything right, and in Nick's mind it appears he still thinks this.

His actions since release have been pretty clearly brazen and unrepentant. He's angry, not fully fearful yet, that night in the jail cell did not humble him. He'll make moves that attempt to save his pride before his skin, and if you don't believe me on that check the Montagraph thread. He had a large window of opportunity to avoid a messy trial, and he squandered it in the name of pride. If he's had to cut back on his alcohol and drug habits that'll only make him more agitated and much less willing to negotiate something reasonable. Then add to that his circle of sycophants being so bright as to now somehow try to spin this as his 16 year old child's fault.

He'd throw Aaron under the bus, but since Aaron was not physically there at the time of arrest that's a long, uphill battle. The main person who can fuck Aaron over right now is his first wife.
 
All three could say Aaron got the drugs and dumped them there should there be any indication that he's dealt. Where did these drugs come from? The Imholtes are closer to the city.
That wouldn't matter because they were still the ones in constructive possession of the drugs that were inside their safes inside their bedroom/bathroom, in their house that he idiotically already voluntarily told the cops is his and Kayla's room. Remember the charge is possession of drugs, not ownership.
 
My effort is a thought experiment to see if he can weasel out of this. I am trying to predict Nick's strategy. If he goes with Barnes's, he's confirmed retarded, yet here we are.
I see some users arguing that Rekieta will get a suspended sentence and I think that is possibly true. This is the best reasonably possible outcome for Nick and basically the way to actually get out of this with little consequences. Granted Nick is retarded so he may manage to not get a suspended sentence.


Otherwise there is no reasonable way for him to weasel out of this. I think Barnes' strategy is likely the best available one if you want to not be convicted. Though it is incredibly retarded. If you think this is wrong all the Prosecution has to do is show the massive amount of evidence of Nick using drugs and being extremely drunk/high. Some fancy "that's not mine officer" isn't going to hold up in the face of that.

If the evidence against you is so large and so good then the best thing you have is some kind of attack on the procedure to hopefully get it thrown out on a technicality.
 
Most likely Nick gets some form of suspended sentence, but genuinely I think there's no way he stays clean during his probation period.

He's absolutely going to fall off the wagon because he doesn't think he did anything wrong and he'll get sloppy about hiding his continued drug use.

If he'd at least fake being sorry and go through the proper steps he'd get the kids back and him and his wife would just have to be smarter about keeping up appearances and/or keep the coke to partying it up on the weekends away from the house.

I don't think the system will want to throw the book at him, even if he's retarded and refuses to take a plea deal.

But I doubt he can spin a coke felony as a positive to his dwindling fan base, so he better hope that trust fund/weird llc set up keeps feeding him money. I don't think Nick's personality can handle being an internet laughing stock, so that's probably the real punishment.
 
Most likely Nick gets some form of suspended sentence, but genuinely I think there's no way he stays clean during his probation period.

He's absolutely going to fall off the wagon because he doesn't think he did anything wrong and he'll get sloppy about hiding his continued drug use.

If he'd at least fake being sorry and go through the proper steps he'd get the kids back and him and his wife would just have to be smarter about keeping up appearances and/or keep the coke to partying it up on the weekends away from the house.

I don't think the system will want to throw the book at him, even if he's retarded and refuses to take a plea deal.

But I doubt he can spin a coke felony as a positive to his dwindling fan base, so he better hope that trust fund/weird llc set up keeps feeding him money. I don't think Nick's personality can handle being an internet laughing stock, so that's probably the real punishment.
This guy would rather throw away 5k so he doesn't have to ever get on the wagon than go to detox and treatment. He doesn't want to get clean so he won't. Simple as.
 
If the evidence against you is so large and so good then the best thing you have is some kind of attack on the procedure to hopefully get it thrown out on a technicality.
Basically if the facts are against you (lots of drugs, neglected kids) then you pound the law. In this case, attack the warrant and try to say it was invalid, which will domino into saying any evidence gathered because of a bad warrant is inadmissable.

So the evidence objectively exists, but the court is forced to pretend it doesn't. Same thing happened to Vic Mignogna.

And I might sound like a fag, but wouldn't call that a mere technicality. You can't violate someone's rights, if for no other reason that if you do, they walk.
 
And I might sound like a fag, but wouldn't call that a mere technicality. You can't violate someone's rights, if for no other reason that if you do, they walk.
Well there is a line there though. If a police officer misspells the name of a street for example should that get the warrant thrown out? This is the entire reason courts exist.

This is also kind of pedantic on the part of anyone who is seriously questioning a warrant in a situation like the one Nick is facing. When you question the warrant like this you are playing a legal game that is trying to abuse the legal system. The rights in legal procedure exist to shield the innocent and to make it a regular process. Nick isn't trying to argue his rights for that purpose at all. He simply wants to face no consequences for his actions.

Society may decide to grant that technical exception in order to preserve the system, but the person/individual/lawyer making that is always doing something sneaky and morally underhanded.

Laywers are snakes etc.
 
Back