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

[Kosher Salt]

I'm guessing one of the things the cops will want to clear up is the discrepancy between Nick's and Kayla's statements about April. According to Nick, she was just visiting and only Nick and Kayla resided in the master bedroom. According to Kayla, she was the live-in nanny.

I agree... I'm not sure how legally relevant it will be, but it's definitely an odd discrepancy between their statements. Shit like this is why you don't talk to the police. Even if you're a YouTube lawyer. You don't know what can end up being used against you (hint: everything you say).

Kayla saying that April was "technically" the live-in nanny is strange, and it was in the context of someone asking how to contact their (former) live-in nanny. My personal hunch is that they'd more-or-less officially hired April as their new live-in nanny, but she had not actually moved in or started just yet (side note, this could tie in to the house being unusually messy), so if someone needed to contact their nanny, she would technically fit the bill... better than that other person did. But this subtlety was lost in communication.

Or, Nick was just lying. Flip a coin.

He's got no chance at trial anyways. A jury will see that bodycam footage with the little girl asking the police for clothes and that'll be it.

Was this the kid that was originally asleep downstairs? Because asking to change out of whatever the kid fell asleep in the night before does not seem outrageous to me. And it also seems like clean clothes for the children were ready on hand, as the report didn't indicate that they couldn't find any.

Dear fucking god, that's ridiculous. I missed that stream and of course it was taken down by the time I would've been able to watch it. The only other person I've seen who was so inebriated on stream that he read the same superchat multiple times was Joe/Good Lawgic, and he has probably smartly cut back on the drinking. Take a hint, Nick.

I'm short fat and dumb and can someone help me on this? I'm searching the Minnesota docket. Is Rekieta in the docket yet for the state of Minnesota? If he is, can someone point me there?

As others have noted, you have to search by the case number(s). Minnesota doesn't allow name searches to turn up charges that haven't been convicted. It's an "innocent until proven guilty" thing, they don't want someone's reputation taking a hit just because of an arrest that may or may not eventually pan out.

i doubt it. following @Sheryl Nome's theory, i am thinking that he posted bond and kayla didn't because he has to drink and stream to work. that's exactly the sort of logic an unrepentant junkie would follow.

I suspect it has more to do with guns than it has to do with alcohol. The conditional bail did not allow the use of alcohol or possession of firearms. Nick at least claimed to do a sober January. But living in that house with no way to defend it, well, I can't say I blame him for wanting to keep his guns.

The problem with this theory (to someone who can think straight, anyway) is that he already said that he got rid of all the alcohol in the house. If he's still surrounded by bottles with a glass of whiskey in his hand on his first stream back, questions will be asked.

If Nick was even a little bit smart, he had someone (the in-laws) remove all the guns out of the house before he returned to it under those bail conditions. Even entering the house where his firearms were stored would've been an automatic violation of his conditional bail terms. If he claimed that liquor had been removed from their home, I'd assume he had them do that as well.

His Locals posts have indicated that there will be a new show format, so who knows whether liquor is involved. But I really think the bail thing has more to do with keeping his 2A rights.

 

[AN/ALR56]

Nothing’s gonna happen unless it fucks over their client somehow.

I'd rather they get to make moronic remarks than have to deal with the FBI being called on me every time I say something rude about someone's retarded race/sex/opinions

I don't mean like criminally charged, but the bar going after them

Because state bar associations derive their authority to control who can become a lawyer for the public from the state, first amendment protections apply to their disciplinary rules, so I would not expect any attempts at discipline to be successful.

Fair enough, but I guess they could be ethically fucked no?
No one would want a lawyer that tries to justify abuse and shit.

I don't know the US, but a lawyer speaking like that here in my country is on a speedrun to get disbarred.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

I don't mean like criminally charged, but the bar going after them

Fair enough, but I guess they could be ethically fucked no?
No one would want a lawyer that tries to justify abuse and shit.

I don't know the US, but a lawyer speaking like that here in my country is on a speedrun to get disbarred.

No, you won't get disbarred for saying objectionable things.

...

But as for Nick: though he may not be disbarred if found guilty of the felony drug charge, it appears that the (Fed) District Court of MN would not allow him to appear. If convicted of a crime where the period of incarceration COULD be ("is punishable by " - not "is punished by") a year or more, a lawyer forfeits the right to appear in that court. Reinstatement on clear and convincing evidence of what amounts to fitness is possible.

https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/LR-83-6.pdf

And to reiterate what's already been said, disbarment is usually related to misdeeds with client funds or repeated negligent handling of cases. Comment to Rule 8.4 of the mn rules of professional conduct, on the topic of lawyers convicted of crimes generally/not about clients/representation:

Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to the practice of law. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, or breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.

Also, comment period is open until Tuesday for the following proposed changes to the MN rules of professional responsibility:

-Creation of a diversion program, which can serve as an alternative to discipline in cases of isolated, nonserious misconduct through skill improvement or management of a behavioral health issue;
-Streamlined process and clarified definitions involved with the determination that public disciplinary charges may proceed; and
-Improved procedures related to reinstatement requests by lawyers suspended from the practice of law because of previous disciplinary action.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I don't mean like criminally charged, but the bar going after them

I repeat myself

 

[gang weeder]

Was this the kid that was originally asleep downstairs? Because asking to change out of whatever the kid fell asleep in the night before does not seem outrageous to me. And it also seems like clean clothes for the children were ready on hand, as the report didn't indicate that they couldn't find any.

The police report specifies that the child also clarified wanting a change of clothes because she had been in the same clothes for more than a day. Reports of Rekieta's kids showing up to church school wearing the same clothes for days in a row, and beginning to smell, were part of the report as well. If you think a bunch of conservative boomers from bumfuck nowhere Minnesota are going to write that off and make up some Juju the Cow style cope about how the little kid obviously should've just done her own laundry, okay. Personally I think their thoughts are likely to go in a different direction. I can tell you for sure what all the nice responsible church-going people I've known would think of that.

 

[AnOminous]

I repeat myself

For an example of exactly how far First Amendment protection extends, even for lawyers, I recommend Standing Committee v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995), in which the lawyer, the notorious Stephen Yagman (subsequently criminally convicted and disbarred for other reasons), had accused the judge in one of his cases of being an anti-Semite and being "drunk on the bench."

This was found protected. This was in the Ninth Circuit. The Eighth may be more conservative on these issues. I would think the "vagina liquor" rant was so unintelligible that I'm not even sure what Nick was trying to say, so I seriously doubt he could be punished for it, but his obvious intoxication by itself on multiple occasions does suggest a lack of competence and the proper character to practice law, even without having a mountain of cocaine in his house.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

More importantly you need lawyers who can defend pedophilia because you need representation for them in court

 

[Napoleon III]

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.

To take you seriously, a dangerous thing to do, I would say that what Kayla is charged with is not only what they suspect but likely only what they can prove. Would you put children back into contact with a mother who was high on cocaine, who is swinging and not feeding her children? I wouldn't until I knew for certain it would be fine.

I will also say I'm not certain CPS is super involved with what is going on. I'm not doubting anyone here really, as I think everyone's logic for why they would be involved is pretty good, it's just we haven't seen any documentation and we may not know for sure.

Nick says the court will clear it up on Monday, right? Well, I'll ask around again if I don't see it by the opening hours. Seems a bit too brazen of a lie

I didn't consider this, but I could totally see Nick playing the "well Kiwifarms is wrong about everything" card. He has done it before by lying to Null about what he said about Montegraph.

We'll see tomorrow I guess.

I would think the "vagina liquor" rant was so unintelligible that I'm not even sure what Nick was trying to say, so I seriously doubt he could be punished for it

Punish him openly that is. The thing about pissing off lawyers and Judges especially experienced ones is that they know how to wield the law and can utilize it to punish you for one thing while saying they are doing it for another thing.

That being said I think the biggest hit the lawyers defending Nick will get is reputational amongst the audience they have cultivated. Considering how hard they have tried to build themselves up, this is a major loss for them. It could also even cause them to lose potential future clients. Overall it is dumb.


The entire point of what I wrote here is to say the massive negative effects someone faces does not have to be spelled out in triplicate to be real.

 

[Milkshake Sniffer]

Nick says the court will clear it up on Monday, right? Well, I'll ask around again if I don't see it by the opening hours. Seems a bit too brazen of a lie

Maybe he's telling the truth this time but if past form is anything to go by, he does have a history of saying , in the most unequivocal terms, what will happen and then just going quiet about it when it turns out to be fantasy.

My first red flag with Nick was the Cuck Commander episode with Nick ranting about how glorious victory was just around the corner and then nothing more was said on the subject. Seems kind of appropriate given recent events.

 

[Ice Gun Ninja]

This guy goes over the Child Neglect charges in a way I have not seen from any other LawlTubers. Starts at 4:48.

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

 

[Gunlance]

Nick says the court will clear it up on Monday, right? Well, I'll ask around again if I don't see it by the opening hours. Seems a bit too brazen of a lie

I think it's most likely that he hates the internet thinking they have a gotcha on him (showing that he doesn't get his wife the same freedom as himself) so he has either lied about her also being out on unconditional bond, or he is actually going to pay/has already paid for her bond at this point and is waiting for the system to update.

Either way, we look forward to your update.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

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.

I think Barnes is just announcing to the world "Hey, if you hire me to represent you there is nothing I won't say or do to defend you. I will make an absolute fool of myself for you. Hire me." This is all a big commercial targeting scumbags who need lawyers. Internet ambulance chasing.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I think Barnes is just announcing to the world "Hey, if you hire me to represent you there is nothing I won't say or do to defend you. I will make an absolute fool of myself for you. Hire me."

It'd be an attractive quality if he could come up with even a single half decent argument. You don't want just a zealous lawyer; you want zealous and at least somewhat competent one.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

There's an old saying in law that goes something like, "When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the table." It seems Nick has opted to go for the latter with a FUD route, at least for his PR campaign. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

What alleged facts has Nick really refuted or argued against? To my recollection:

• The track marks comment from one of the reporters. Nick says, "I have never done IV drugs in my life." But further reports indicate marks on his body consistent with drug use (ie it could be sores or marks from fidgeting, self-harm, etc. without being injection points). Per Aaron (an unreliable source), Nick would hit himself on the head while getting into arguments with Kayla, so it is possible that Nick's various bruises and marks could be from self-harm (or drugs).
• The drug use - not directly addressed by Nick, just the above line about no IV drugs. Which, there were no injectables found on site. But that's a misdirection, it wasn't being accused, outside of one note in the mandatory report. But no explanation really of the marks on his arm, the bruises, or just the general decline of health.
• The spent casings - Nick says they're from an art piece. In the bedroom. That used bullets. Possible! Is it from the art piece? Is it a misidentified round? Was it supply for brown-brown? How much "art" has this idiot bought?
• The gun under the bed. Nick says it had a gun lock. That's not directly contradicted by the report. But again, a misdirection. It's illegal to have the guns if you are using illegal narcotics. Is it a bullshit law? Probably. But it is the law, and this probably isn't the case that will overturn it.
• The kids are fine - but no real data to back this up. From the church video, the boys are rail thin, but so was Nick around their ages. Did the kids lose weight? We don't know, the only story we have is that the kids couldn't even cook their own Spaghettios, as recounted by Aaron. This was after the polycule breakup, but before the arrest. For all the talk of the kids need to man up, it seems very likely most of them did not have many skills for self-survival.
  There's no way for remote parties to know if the kids smelled, or if there was a laundry issue at the house. But Aaron Imholte recounted that clothes were lying all around the house, and that even for things like dance recitals, they'd be throwing clothes around in the living room, looking for something to put on the girls to go for their recital. To say nothing of the other kids or adults. Sean has seen a picture of the house (I believe) before the arrest taken by someone who was there, and the state of the house in the picture lines up with the official report.
  And then, the testimony of the kids on site, just initially talking to the cops. At least one utterance of needing clean clothes.
• The booze! He's cleaning up, he threw out his liquor! Or he gave it away. Or he moved it. His show isn't going to have that "theme". While there wasn't a charge about drinking ( you can be drunk in your house, after all, and it doesn't seem that they thought Nick was drunk when they pulled him over), he did drop at least $5k (maybe $10k) on

Of course, a lot of this could be clarified by releasing the body cam footage!

Keep pounding the table, Nick, and obfuscating, like you always do. I'm sure that will continue to work out well for you.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Kayla and Nick filed a "notice to remove" Judge Fisher

 

[Peaches the Wonder Cat]

Kayla and Nick filed a motion to recuse for Judge Fisher

As screenshots:

Same with the name changed, both pro se. Nick didn't bother changing the email.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Nick and Kayla have each filed pro se to remove the Honorable Judge Fischer from the case due to "interest or bias of judge"!

For someone representing herself, the document Kayla filed certainly appears to look a lot like the one filed by her NPL husband.

 

[Kosher Salt]

The police report specifies that the child also clarified wanting a change of clothes because she had been in the same clothes for more than a day.

My recollection is that it said "more than that day" which could just mean the kid had slept in them, woke up, and wanted to change. Hence my question about which kid it was. One of the kids was woken up and then immediately walked out of the house by an officer. If that kid asked later to change out of what they'd slept in, I'd find that pretty unremarkable.

I'm trying to figure out what objective evidence we actually have, as opposed to a bunch of subjective evidence provided by a handful of people from Nick's church who asked to remain anonymous. I'm sure CPS will do their own investigation to determine whether there's truth to the claim, but that won't be released to the public.

 

[NadeND-001]

As screenshots:
View attachment 6050054View attachment 6050055
Same with the name changed, both pro se. Nick didn't bother changing the email.

Rackets are scared that much cuz of all the trashing Nick did on the judge cuz of Montys lawsuit.

 

[Peaches the Wonder Cat]

Rackets are scared that much cuz of all the trashing Nick did on the judge cuz of Montys lawsuit.

That goes for Nick, but I don't see why Kayla has any cause to ask for another judge. "My husband talked about Your Honor's dripping pussy juice on a stream once" does not sound like a good legal argument, but I am not an attorney.