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

[JackoVerde]

Surely if she were up against the charges she was arrested for, CPS wouldn’t allow her to still live with her children even if their grandparents had custody?

Doesn’t it usually take CPS a long time to take the kids away. You have kids living with their crackhead parents for several months to a few years living with their parents before they takes the kids away depending on the situation.
also unlike many of them, the rekietas have money and resources, they’d be able to fight it in court, delaying things even further.

i guess once the older brother turns 18 in less than 2 years, he can just adopt all his younger siblings.

 

[TheClappening]

Neither would I. He seems more worried about the court of public opinion rather than the criminal court that could send him to prison.

Judging by sentencing guidelineas dicussed earlier in the thread, the more likely outcome is a slap on the wrist punishment. That, Nick can live with.

Being the laughingstock of the internet... that'll eat Nick alive.

I don't know how that works, though. If by some work of lawyering sorcery the coke is found to be inadmissable, it doesn't change the fact that it was, objectively, found. A jury might not be allowed to consider it, but us gawkers of the internet sure can.

You'd have to delve into tinfoil hat theory for Nick to win this in the court of public opinion. Like, Fischer was so assblasted about vaginal liquor she ordered drugs planted in Nick's house and conspired with the pastor to make a false report even though the Mini Rackets are well fed and smell like daisies.

 

[AnOminous]

Her credit cards being with the cocaine would go to constructive possession. But Nick trying to protect her (instead of his actual wife) by saying she was just a house guest isn't going to help with that.

It's still a lot weaker. At best it's a residue case, if Minnesota even still allows that.

Actually they legalized the possession of drug paraphernalia, even if it has residue on it, just last year.

https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/05/22/minnesota-to-legalize-possession-of-all-drug-paraphernalia-even-if-it-has-residue/

I'd say the cards would constitute paraphernalia in this case, and it would not be criminal to possess them.

Still, it might have been enough to flip her, if they didn't just decide they had no case.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

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.

I don't think Kayla would renounce any chance of getting custody back, but I could see Nick walking away Ralphamale style.

 

[gang weeder]

I don't think Kayla would renounce any chance of getting custody back, but I could see Nick walking away Ralphamale style.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nick loses custody and spins it as "the evil gubmint took mah keeds away!" That way he gets rid of them and also still gets to play victim and absolve himself of responsibility for the situation.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Nicks real problem is and always has been that the state can’t acquit him of his damn thread.

 

[Sir Dank-a-Lot]

I wouldn't be surprised if Nick loses custody and spins it as "the evil gubmint took mah keeds away!" That way he gets rid of them and also still gets to play victim and absolve himself of responsibility for the situation.

He won’t lose custody. This needs to be spelled out again: They won’t lose custody. CPS always favors keeping families together. They only way the lose is if they don’t clean up after this. There are people who have done much worse and still have their kids.

 

[mindlessobserver]

He won’t lose custody. This needs to be spelled out again: They won’t lose custody. CPS always favors keeping families together. They only way the lose is if they don’t clean up after this. There are people who have done much worse and still have their kids.

Not unless the Grand Parents make petition. That is the wild card there, because they could absolutely file for custody, and then its completely out of CPS' hands beyond just an advisory role since it is up to the court. Since the Grand Parents have physical and legal custody at the time being, they also get to keep it as things wind through the court. CPS already HAS broken up the family. They just haven't filed a petition to make the breakup permanent. The Grand Parents can.

 

[gang weeder]

He won’t lose custody. This needs to be spelled out again: They won’t lose custody. CPS always favors keeping families together. They only way the lose is if they don’t clean up after this. There are people who have done much worse and still have their kids.

Well, I should have been more clear, I'm assuming here that Nick and Kayla get divorced. If they stay together, sure, I agree there is a much higher chance of Nick "keeping" the kids. I don't think he is going to "clean up" either way though. Definitely not at this rate.

 

[Swole McPole]

Doesn’t it usually take CPS a long time to take the kids away. You have kids living with their crackhead parents for several months to a few years living with their parents before they takes the kids away depending on the situation.

As you say, it depends on the situation. It all costs money. Sometimes BIG money. Money that local authorities often don't have. (Again, talking UK here but I imagine USA is similar.)

So, if there's hard evidence that the children are at real risk, one of the kids has disclosed that stepdaddy has been diddling them when mommy's out at work, they'll get an emergency court order and those kids will be whisked away into the care of the local authority. Which generally means foster care. Which generally means that the family where the kids will be housed are getting paid. And on top of that, you've got the court costs, social workers, guardians ad litem, etc. etc.

So if they can turn a blind eye, they often will. They'll place with grandparents as a way of doing it all on the cheap -- but they know that the parents will almost certainly retain some contact under these circumstances.

All this varies hugely by area as well. CPS in some areas are utterly draconian and will whip your kids away because you farted in the same room. In other areas, mommy and daddy can be smoking crack on the regular and they're just too damn busy to give much of a fuck.

This needs to be spelled out again: They won’t lose custody. CPS always favors keeping families together. They only way the lose is if they don’t clean up after this.

They've already lost custody haven't they? Presumably, it's on a temporary basis while CPS/the court/the grandparents see how they shape up. Is it possible that the children will be returned to Kayla and Nick while they work out their problems? If they wer.e in the UK -- first offence cocaine possession, I think they'd probably be back in the family home now. There'd be regular supervision by social workers and the like (on paper at least) but affluent middle class families dabbling in cocaine use tend to be somewhat low down the list of priorities when it comes to child protection. Too many genuine horror cases taking up their limited time.

 

[Lubby Smith]

He won’t lose custody. This needs to be spelled out again: They won’t lose custody. CPS always favors keeping families together. They only way the lose is if they don’t clean up after this. There are people who have done much worse and still have their kids.

The way pieces of shit keep custody is by admitting wrongdoing. They admit to the abuse/neglect, and, because the law favors keeping families together, they're put on a parenting plan with drug testing, classes, supervised visitation, etc. Upon successful completion they regain custody. Only after many fuckups will their rights be terminated.

The way to lose custody is to deny wrongdoing. If you deny it, then there's a hearing where the judge determines if abuse/neglect is proven by clear and convincing evidence. If it's proven, the parents rights get terminated because you can't rehabilitate someone who denies wrongdoing.

This is one of the reasons why there are so many horror stories from parental rights proceedings. Shit parents who admit they're shit get a million chances. Good parents who won't admit wrongdoing get screwed.

Given that these proceedings should be confidential and nothing from the proceeding is typically admissable in a criminal case, Nick shouldn't be dumb enough to fight the CPS case. He should make an admission, do a parenting plan, and regain custody in 12-18 months.

 

[AnOminous]

CPS already HAS broken up the family. They just haven't filed a petition to make the breakup permanent. The Grand Parents can.

CPS has yet to do anything we know of. I assume there's an ongoing investigation. What has currently happened is a straight up criminal matter.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

Actually they legalized the possession of drug paraphernalia, even if it has residue on it, just last year.

I'm not saying it's a crime in itself. It's evidence of constructive possession, but probably not enough to find her guilty of possession of the cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. I wouldn't convict just on that fact, at least. But if there's testimonial evidence of her possession, it cuts a lot more against her.

I don't think the prosecutors are that concerned about prosecuting her, though. It's much more beneficial to focus on trying Rekieta than the drug-compensated paramour. The County Attorney is an elected position, and the current guy, Shane Baker, has been in office since 2013. Who was the last County Attorney? Judge Fischer. If I were Baker, I'd focus on the Rekieta prosecution and to try to capitalize on the attention it brings to become a judge, too. Baker also is an alum of the same law school as Fischer and Rekieta.

If it wasn't obvious to everyone already, Rekieta really fucked up by pissing off lawyers in his small town's bar so consistently. Everyone knows each other, they probably all talk, and I'd bet nobody liked Rekieta that much even before the cocaine.

 

[MunsterCheeseJr]

Nick told Camelot during his recent stream that Kayla in on the $50,000 unrestricted bail option too.

About 40 minutes into the stream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjRYBjUYoI0

Of course this begs the question as to why this has not come up in the records that people found out about Nick's $50k bail decision.

 

[Napoleon III]

Posting some things that were posted in the main Rekieta thread that are related to the case. Luv me Highlights feature. Otherwise that thread moves way too fast unless you are autistically following Rekieta and spending multiple hours just reading that thread.

This was posted yesterday. Already joking about his case. There was speculation he was drunk when he said this. He also seems to have woken up this morning and regretted making this joke. Could also be sarcasm because he said it on twitter.


Apparently both Nick and Kayla are out on unconditional bond.



I also wanted to cross post this to say he might maybe be trying to take the case a bit more seriously. Maybe he might be trying to do the pretend to be fixing himself thing. Rate me optimistic if you like, but I can't think of a better reason for him to change his branding.

If you want to read more about this stuff you can in the main Rekieta thread I just thought these were interesting from a legal perspective and relevant to this case so I cross-posted them here. Go backwards with the highlights feature enough and you'll find all of these images.

 

[Judex Meus]

CPS has yet to do anything we know of. I assume there's an ongoing investigation. What has currently happened is a straight up criminal matter.

Question from a non-lawyer retard. Is it possible that if CPS uncovers something criminal outside the scope of a separate criminal investigation, can that cause another criminal investigation? Or would it be added to the ongoing investigation? Or would something else happen entirely?

 

[Dyn]

Surely if she were up against the charges she was arrested for, CPS wouldn’t allow her to still live with her children even if their grandparents had custody?

Why not? They're neglect charges, not abuse charges. CPS probably isn't worried she's going to start actively slapping grandma's meatloaf out of her children's mouths.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Question from a non-lawyer retard. Is it possible that if CPS uncovers something criminal outside the scope of a separate criminal investigation, can that cause another criminal investigation? Or would it be added to the ongoing investigation? Or would something else happen entirely?

It’s possible and then it would probably be sealed for awhile. I suspect that the CPS got basically uninterested once they confirmed the kids were ok with the grandparents and have a note to check up later.

Since there’s an easy explanation - “parents were coked up” they won’t dig terribly deep.

If the exact scenario happened but the parents had no evidence of alcohol or coke, they’d be on the “fucking cult” playbook and much more interested.

 

[Gehenna]

I'm not saying it's a crime in itself. It's evidence of constructive possession, but probably not enough to find her guilty of possession of the cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. I wouldn't convict just on that fact, at least. But if there's testimonial evidence of her possession, it cuts a lot more against her.

I don't think the prosecutors are that concerned about prosecuting her, though. It's much more beneficial to focus on trying Rekieta than the drug-compensated paramour. The County Attorney is an elected position, and the current guy, Shane Baker, has been in office since 2013. Who was the last County Attorney? Judge Fischer. If I were Baker, I'd focus on the Rekieta prosecution and to try to capitalize on the attention it brings to become a judge, too. Baker also is an alum of the same law school as Fischer and Rekieta.

If it wasn't obvious to everyone already, Rekieta really fucked up by pissing off lawyers in his small town's bar so consistently. Everyone knows each other, they probably all talk, and I'd bet nobody liked Rekieta that much even before the cocaine.

Could I please ask what exactly he has done to anger his local collogues? My only real knowledge of the man comes from the Vic Mignona case. I never really had much interest beyond that until now, and that only because Vic voiced a character near and dear to my grandson who roped me into watching all of FMA with him. I gather that Rikieta is a grifter of some vein and that Ty Beard was an absolute incompetent so i assume that more or less is a shared trait, but details are appreciated.

 

[gang weeder]

I also wanted to cross post this to say he might maybe be trying to take the case a bit more seriously. Maybe he might be trying to do the pretend to be fixing himself thing. Rate me optimistic if you like, but I can't think of a better reason for him to change his branding.

I think he is at least going to pretend to not be drinking, or downplay the drinking a lot, while his case is going on. Whether or not he actually wants to drink less or it's just a facade for the court will be up for debate. I'm going with the latter of course. As dumb as Nick has been so far, I would still be surprised if he was stupid enough to have a glass of whiskey in hand when he finally fires up his stream. I guess we can't rule it out as a possibility though.