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

[Musashi's Son]

His arraignment was on the 24th, did he really wait until the last possible minute? lol

Lmfao going for the Ty Beard strategy of submitting fillings until the last minute. Let's see how that works out for you Nicky. Also, he STILL is representing himself and his wife.

 

[DuranceVile]

His arraignment was on the 24th, did he really wait until the last possible minute? lol

View attachment 6050138

He did a Ty Beard? What's he going to do next, use the wrong form and get all his evidence thrown out?

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

I personally think that her making negative remarks about Nick's client hiring him in her sentencing hearing would be sufficient reason to remove her, even without his civil case or anything negative he's said about her.

We only have Nick's word on this right now and he's been less than truthful.

 

[AltisticRight]

His arraignment was on the 24th, did he really wait until the last possible minute? lol

View attachment 6050138

I think Balldo is stalling intentionally.

 

[monstrous bubo]

Sorry if this has been asked and answered, but would Nick deleting his stream or disabling chat and coomalot doing the same count as tampering with/destroying evidence?

This is subject to correction by more knowledgeable farmers, but it seems no. The relevant chapter is on crimes against the administration of justice (609.48ff). That has specific offences for assisting someone you reasonably believe is an offender to destroy evidence (609.495) and witness tampering (609.498), but nothing on an offender’s destruction of evidence incriminating him/herself. Would this be a 5A issue? There are Minnesota provisions making the concealment of a corpse or criminal proceeds an offence, which surely would have the same problem, so I would have thought not.
Do other jurisdictions have a law prohibiting an offender from destroying incriminating evidence, and Minnesota just doesn’t? Or is it somewhere else in the statute? If so, I could not find references to it in articles generally on this issue in Minnesota.

 

[Kosher Salt]

We only have Nick's word on this right now and he's been less than truthful.

Fair, but the record of the hearing would indicate whether it happened or not.

 

[Ice Gun Ninja]

Sorry if this has been asked and answered, but would Nick deleting his stream or disabling chat and coomalot doing the same count as tampering with/destroying evidence?

As long as it is considered evidence. The cops probably have their own copy of the stream, So, I would say not yet.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Great proofreading work by Nick Rekieta.



The error appears on both Nick and Kayla's filing.


EDIT: The site is breaking for me today but for clarity, Nick lives in Kandiyohi County, about two hours away from Anoka County, which is just north of Minneapolis.

This is the first smart thing Nick has done in a week.

Other than the whole clearly still giving Kayla legal advice although they're co-defendants. Kayla should have already found a real attorney rather than filing "pro se" the error-ridden garbage Nick gives her to sign.

If Kayla had half a brain, she would be turning on Nick and kept Fischer on in the hopes that she really did have an animus against Nick like Nick believes, but I guess she's standing by her (and April's) man.

 

[Francis York Morgan]

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.

Might be an argument if her coke fiend husband wasn't her attorney.

 

[Kosher Salt]

As long as it is considered evidence. The cops probably have their own copy of the stream, So, I would say not yet.

If the stream was set to "private" rather than deleted and/or he retains his local copy of the VOD saved in StreamLabs, it would not count as "destruction" anyway.

 

[AltisticRight]

The error appears on both Nick and Kayla's filing.

I found this to be very unusual as well, shouldn't it be "Anoka County", something like Anoka County, MN?
For an oursider like me, I'm more than likely to type this because I'm not that tuned in on American counties and Bri*ish influence.

 

[Musashi's Son]

The request for removal was granted based on the timely filings from both Nick and Kayla from my understanding. (If there is an error in my post feel free to correct me).

EDIT: typos

 

[S1apSh0es]

So just so I understand:

The judge hasn’t said anything about Nick and has not shown any signs of bias…. The only issue is what Nick said?

Under that logic doesn’t that mean I could have ANY AND EVERY judge removed from my case as long as I trash talk them online?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Not surprising. Costs both the state and Nick nothing to switch judges

 

[Balldo's Gate]

I found this to be very unusual as well, shouldn't it be "Anoka County", something like Anoka County, MN?

It should be Kandiyohi County (first image) because Nick lives nowhere near Anoka County.



Pretty clear Nick copied the motion from somewhere and failed to change the name of the county or the Judicial District (it says 10th, corresponding to Anoka, but should be Eighth, corresponding to Kandiyohi)

In any case, it obviates any doubt that Nick prepared the motion for himself and Kayla even though they are purportedly both "pro se".

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

More surprising than the filing for removal is that Nick and Kayla haven't hired counsel yet. I've never been in the position of being charged for a felony before, nor have I dealt with CPS, but I feel like the first thing he should have done after getting bail is to hire counsel. This doesn't make Nick look good.

 

[Mike Stoklasas Spock Ears]

Document hasn’t been uploaded yet but looks like Kayla’s bond has indeed been paid.



Also, new judge

 

[Sheryl Nome]

So just so I understand:

The judge hasn’t said anything about Nick and has not shown any signs of bias…. The only issue is what Nick said?

Under that logic doesn’t that mean I could have ANY AND EVERY judge removed from my case as long as I trash talk them online?

In this case it is permissible for a 1 time, within 7 day request for a didn't judge without cause, ie anything from I said mean things, to I just don't like their name

 

[Boingboingboingboi]

looks like it was granted, and they got the same judge from the arraignment. NOT THE SAME JUDGE



also, none of this matters when the cops find hungry, stinky children and an ounce of coke in your house.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

His arraignment was on the 24th, did he really wait until the last possible minute? lol

He really is doing the Beard strategy, let's see how it plays out!

I think he's patting himself on the back, but I also think he just majorly fucked up.

I doubt another judge will rule materially differently in this case, and a judge who doesn't like you can be better than one that doesn't care about you - if they're a good judge overall. Because they will KNOW they don't like you and often fight against it (see also: judges allowing basically any non-material motion from defendants that are going to lose).

However, he just removed a powerful appeals line (even if bullshit).

Under that logic doesn’t that mean I could have ANY AND EVERY judge removed from my case as long as I trash talk them online?

It's like how in jury selection each side can just dismiss with no reason a few jurors - you get to remove ONE judge once for no reason stated (of course, the entire police and court system in Anoka King Candy County is laughing their ass off as to the reason.

Nick's problem is he thinks everyone is like him, if he were judge over the liquorsupplylady he'd be vindictive as fuck.