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

[mindlessobserver]

When is someone going to step in and tell Kayla Nick cannot simultaneously be his own lawyer and her lawyer? Is the prosecution just gonna let it ride so they can get Nick disbarred? Because representing yourself pro se along with a co defendant is up there with stealing client money. Nick's own defense may be adverse to Kayla's. There is no way he can competently represent her.

I thought this shit would be sorted out after the Bond hearing, but he's still signing shit for her.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Even on the gun charges, that depends. The report said they were unsecured, no locks on the rifle in the bedroom. Can't do that in Minnesota. We and Nick can bitch about it, but it's the law. Also was in a house with drugs. Can't do that either. That's two strikes. A shrewd prosecuter would say they were unsecured around children if he wants to play hard ball. That's a third strike.

I think the prosecutor can bring additional charges later (but at some point they kind of have to shit or get off the pot) and I don't remember specific violations of the unsecured guns laws - just the gross misdemeanors. Perhaps it's not clarified until the omnibus?

 

[WelperHelper99]

I think the prosecutor can bring additional charges later (but at some point they kind of have to shit or get off the pot) and I don't remember specific violations of the unsecured guns laws - just the gross misdemeanors. Perhaps it's not clarified until the omnibus?

I remember it in the report when they talk about the guns under the bead, that they were unsecured, and that's illegal. Rackets than said ITS NAWT TRUE in locals dms, and then all were locked up. I noticed because I'm a gun guy. I imagine it was one of many reasons that night they took his guns. He violated multiple laws.

 

[AnOminous]

When is someone going to step in and tell Kayla Nick cannot simultaneously be his own lawyer and her lawyer?

But he isn't. She's totally representing herself pro se when she files absolutely identical motions with even the same cut and paste errors within a minute of when her husband also files that very same identical motion with the same error.

Believe the plan.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

I remember it in the report when they talk about the guns under the bead, that they were unsecured, and that's illegal. Rackets than said ITS NAWT TRUE in locals dms, and then all were locked up. I noticed because I'm a gun guy. I imagine it was one of many reasons that night they took his guns. He violated multiple laws.

Taking the guns is a no-brainer; a simple felony arrest would be enough for that (and even if it's "offsite" with no warrant, a felony arrest can sometimes be enough for them to order you to surrender firearms).

But actually charging him under 609.666 (the devil's code!) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.666 is another matter. AFAIK they did not (and that one is pretty specific about what "loaded" means, not "california loaded" which is the gun and any bullet within fifteen miles).

I wouldn't put it past the cops to mark an AR-15 under a bed with a trigger lock or bolt cable as "unsecured". That they didn't go beyond "having a gun with coke" tells me they know it wouldn't stick.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I remember it in the report when they talk about the guns under the bead, that they were unsecured, and that's illegal. Rackets than said ITS NAWT TRUE in locals dms, and then all were locked up. I noticed because I'm a gun guy. I imagine it was one of many reasons that night they took his guns. He violated multiple laws.

Unsecured gun laws are also a bit draconian imo. If parents were cited because they had a rifle squirreled away in an unlocked closet somewhere, then pretty much every gun owner would be guilty of it at some point. Worse, you could have the Ammo locked up and still be guilty of it even though the rifle was disarmed.

Gun laws in general suck so I will give Rackets that mulligan.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I imagine it was one of many reasons that night they took his guns.

Unless Nick said something in DMs/Locals that I missed, I've seen nothing about the police confiscating any guns. And the search was executed in the morning, not at night.

While he was under the conditional bail requirements, he was not allowed to possess the guns, but that could be remedied by having the in-laws temporarily keep them. They're not under that conditional bail any longer, as they've paid the unconditional bail now. There is no reason why he could not have the guns back, at least until he's been convicted of something that would make him ineligible to have them.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Taking the guns is a no-brainer; a simple felony arrest would be enough for that (and even if it's "offsite" with no warrant, a felony arrest can sometimes be enough for them to order you to surrender firearms).

But actually charging him under 609.666 (the devil's code!) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.666 is another matter. AFAIK they did not (and that one is pretty specific about what "loaded" means, not "california loaded" which is the gun and any bullet within fifteen miles).

I wouldn't put it past the cops to mark an AR-15 under a bed with a trigger lock or bolt cable as "unsecured". That they didn't go beyond "having a gun with coke" tells me they know it wouldn't stick.

It's what I heard. They can always bring it as a charge later.

Unsecured gun laws are also a bit draconian imo. If parents were cited because they had a rifle squirreled away in an unlocked closet somewhere, then pretty much every gun owner would be guilty of it at some point. Worse, you could have the Ammo locked up and still be guilty of it even though the rifle was disarmed.

Gun laws in general suck so I will give Rackets that mulligan.

Locking up your guns is like half the US. Why do you think I live in Utah?

Unless Nick said something in DMs/Locals that I missed, I've seen nothing about the police confiscating any guns. And the search was executed in the morning, not at night.

While he was under the conditional bail requirements, he was not allowed to possess the guns, but that could be remedied by having the in-laws temporarily keep them. They're not under that conditional bail any longer, as they've paid the unconditional bail now. There is no reason why he could not have the guns back, at least until he's been convicted of something that would make him ineligible to have them.

The judge literally said no firearms without bail. I imagine he might have them back now. And yes he said that. It's in the nick thread, I read it. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Minnesota's statute is actually pretty strong as such statutes go, allowing a spouse to invoke the privilege against the other spouse, but let's look at the language:

Minn. Stat. Ann. § 595.02(a).

Whoopsie daisy because that's probably the single worst and most life-destroying charge either of them face, despite being only a gross misdemeanor.

I wonder if this opens the door to the other charges being testified to. These charges are all linked, so it would be impossible to try an assert spousal privilege for one and not the others. 5th amendment still a viable option buy juries do not like that.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

The judge literally said no firearms without bail. I imagine he might have them back now. And yes he said that. It's in the nick thread, I read it. Don't shoot the messenger.

The evidence report listing had all the guns on it, and just like I doubt they've given him back his ounce of coke, I daresay the guns are still in custody.

The bail limitation was no playing with any firearms whatsoever; e.g., don't buy new ones, don't borrow ones, don't even necessarily be near a friend who has some.

 

[RodgerDodger]

What I don't understand about this argument is that it leads to an absurd conclusion that one could slander as many judges as they like until there are none left or they find a particularly favourable one. This doesn't stand to reason. I imagine there would have to be evidence that Nick's comments have caused bias, such as the judge referencing them or having a significant change in demeanour towards the defendant after they've been said. Judges get called shit all the time, they're trained to deal with it, and this was fairly tame compared to the death or rape threats they might ordinarily receive.

It's my view that Fischer was either happy to not deal with it (could be as simple as being overloaded with other cases), or viewed her other case with Nick as sufficiently prejudicial to warrant stepping away. Either way I don't think the pussy liquor comment did it, if she's even seen that piece of evidence at this point.

Fischer would not have given it any thought or consideration. Other than the Search Warrant Application she was likely not in any way read in on this case yet. There is a 7 day 1 time freebie no questions asked Judge change. At this point it was just a calendar item for her. I doubt any of the Judges take much action before that 7 day window is up. Why waste time on a case that probably won't be yours?

Once again Nick has a problem with Fischer. We have seen no signs that Fischer has a problem with Nick. Or that she even remembers who he is without having the days case file in front of her. She's Nick's imaginary Nemesis who asks who he is each time she meets him.

I think whether or not any judge takes issue with Nick or not, will do nothing to change his situation overall. Nicks charges are pretty bad, especially the child neglect stuff. Even if Nick managed to magically summon a balldowashing judge of his choosing it will be pretty difficult for them to help him in any way. Given his current attitude of believing he dindu nuffin, well that perspective will not do him any favors in front of any judge.

So whether or not the judge likes or dislikes Nick, he's still screwed.

From digging a bit on the new Judge, he is both Nick's best hope and worst nightmare. He offers generous 18-24 month straight and sober get your life back together plans. It's one of his big crusades.

But

You have to 100% be on the program. No room for fuck ups. If Nick fights this to the end. No program, he gets curbstomped by the Judge. If Nick pleads into the program and then goes back to being Nick. He gets curbstomped.

Nick's own adversarial nature has a high chance of fucking him over.

 

[Kosher Salt]

The bail limitation was no playing with any firearms whatsoever; e.g., don't buy new ones, don't borrow ones, don't even necessarily be near a friend who has some.

The bail has been paid now, so he's no longer under this condition. Although if they already seized guns as evidence you're probably right that he's not getting those back, at least not unless the gun charges are dropped.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

That's actually a question I don't know the answer to - in MN (or the USA in general) can an accused felon purchase firearms before his trial? It seems eminently reasonable that the answer is no but ...

 

[DavidS877]

That's actually a question I don't know the answer to - in MN (or the USA in general) can an accused felon purchase firearms before his trial? It seems eminently reasonable that the answer is no but ...

Here's the form:

c says to me that you are now a prohibited person.

 

[WelperHelper99]

The evidence report listing had all the guns on it, and just like I doubt they've given him back his ounce of coke, I daresay the guns are still in custody.

The bail limitation was no playing with any firearms whatsoever; e.g., don't buy new ones, don't borrow ones, don't even necessarily be near a friend who has some.

Here's the form:
View attachment 6053632
c says to me that you are now a prohibited person.

Ah yes, Form 4473. Hello ATF my old friend. Yeah, Nick doesn't have his guns lol.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Here's the form:
View attachment 6053632
c says to me that you are now a prohibited person.

That form applies if he tries to purchase one from a dealer, yes.

 

[Evilronald]

When is someone going to step in and tell Kayla Nick cannot simultaneously be his own lawyer and her lawyer? Is the prosecution just gonna let it ride so they can get Nick disbarred? Because representing yourself pro se along with a co defendant is up there with stealing client money. Nick's own defense may be adverse to Kayla's. There is no way he can competently represent her.

I thought this shit would be sorted out after the Bond hearing, but he's still signing shit for her.

I think that this will be sorted at the next hearing. The court can’t just make orders without the parties being able to have their say.

 

[talk talk talk]

What Balldo and The Noseguards (saw them at the Mermaid in '87) need to worry about is not a firearms charge, but a firearms sentencing enhancement under Section 609.11.

Balldo had his meme-tier AR under the bed in the bedroom where they found his coke stash. If he doesn't make a deal (and he can get a really good deal as a first-timer--probably with no jail time and not even a felony on his record) the prosecution is likely to go for the man min on the sentencing.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Here's the form:
View attachment 6053632
c says to me that you are now a prohibited person.

Post Bruen, the 5th Circuit court (TX) has ruled that it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment to prohibit firearms possession for certain drug offenses (under 922 g 3). No. 22-60596, US. v Daniels. Earlier case US. v Rahimi (No. 21-11001)ruled that a person accused of domestic violence can still posses firearms. Nick might actually get off on this one if it forces a circuit split up to SCOTUS.

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(, a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 2, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk No. 21-11001 2 Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.

The government suggests that, in the spirit of the drafts of the Second Amendment and the Militia Act, marihuana users threaten the public “peace.” But at the time of the Founding, that notion referred specifically to violence or rebellion, not generalized public harm. 43 And § 922(g)(3) is not limited to those with a history of violent behavior—not all members of the set of “drug users” are violent. As applied in this case, the government has not shown how Daniels’s marihuana use predisposes him to armed conflict or that he has a history of drug-related violence
Furthermore, even as the Founders were disarming Catholics and politically disaffected citizens, they left ordinary drunkards unregulated. The government has no meaningful response to the fact that neither Congress nor the states disarmed alcoholics, the group most closely analogous to marihuana users in the 18th and 19th centuries. As with the government’s analogy to mental illness, we must ask: Which are marihuana users more like: British Loyalists during the Revolution? Or repeat alcohol users? The answer is surely the latter. The government asks us to set aside the particulars of the historical record and defer to Congress’s modern-day judgment that Daniels is presumptively dangerous because he smokes marihuana multiple times a month. But that is the kind of toothless rational basis review that Bruen proscribes. Absent a comparable regulatory tradition in either the 18th or 19th century ,§ 922(g)(3) fails constitutional muster under the Second Amendment.

Daniels’s § 922(g)(3) conviction is inconsistent with our “history and tradition” of gun regulation. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2128. We conclude only by emphasizing the narrowness of that holding. We do not invalidate the statute in all its applications, but, importantly, only as applied to Daniels. Nor do we suggest that a robust Second Amendment is incompatible with other reasonable gun regulations.

 

[RandomBattles]

We should poll who in the Balldo LawTube 'verse Nick is going to hire to represent him or whether he'll represent himself.

I vote he'll hire Robert Barnes.