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

[talk talk talk]

Barnes isn't admitted in Minnesota. There is a Robert Barnes admitted in Minnesota, but he's some guy in Duluth.

Barnes would have to get a pro hac admission.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Barnes would have to get a pro hac admission.

Based on what we've seen, he's certainly not an amateur hack, so I think it'll be granted automatically.

 

[MadStan]

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.

Oh, the prosecution will certainly bring this up at the actual hearing no doubt. Look at it this way; right now nick could be dumb enough to file papers on behalf of Kayla with total denials and lies; only to be later found to have lied as an officer of the court (her lawyer). There is no scenario in which him acting for Kayla was ever a smart idea.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Based on what we've seen, he's certainly not an amateur hack, so I think it'll be granted automatically.

He can use the lawyer he used to pro hace Randazza in the Monty case

 

[mindlessobserver]

Barnes is the most disappointing thing about this. Dude represented the forum quite well in the Fatrick incident. People only had nice things to say about him. He's taking it way too personally about people' criticisms of his defense of Rekieta.

He's also linking us to some of the Gay Ops on his Locals, even though the forum has nothing to do with it. Many such stories. Sad.

 

[WelperHelper99]

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.

With what money? It took him well over a week to scrape together bail when hes supposedly rich. This is beyond optimistic for a drug and firearm charge with child abuse in the mix.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

With what money? It took him well over a week to scrape together bail when hes supposedly rich. This is beyond optimistic for a drug and firearm charge with child abuse in the mix.

I never said it was the most realistic. Knowing Nick, this is what exactly he'll do and file an interlocutory appeal this up to SCOTUS. I can't wait for the "Dammit Nick, we lost the case again!" shirts for his appeal fund.

 

[NSA Intern]

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.

It’s funnier if Noseferatu gets more aggravating factors in his sentencing, so I hope they do end up laying it against him.

 

[Artificial Stupidity]

Hey, wanna hear a riddle? I come to a thread, but I do not read it. I have opinions, but no foundation. What am I?

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

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.

Rahimi is set to be heard by the S.Ct. this year. Cases still on appeal after Bruen are stayed pending further expected guidance in Rahimi.

 

[AnOminous]

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.

Issues like this do in fact mean nobody should be shocked and horrified if Nick walks on most of this, or even if he somehow pulls off the miracle of a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule defense.

I don't think he should, but as much as I hate Nick at this point, I'd rather he gets off than that Fourth Amendment jurisprudence gets weakened.

That said, I don't think it's on his side in this case, but it's a closer call than you might think.

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.

Don't forget the remote possibility that if the state manages to fuck this up, the feds also go after him. They rarely do this in cases like this, but they can, and sometimes do. I specifically don't think they will because it's basically Bruen-bait, but they could.

 

[Chukipz]

If the kid being poorly behaved was per se evidence of neglect, every black kid in the country would be in state custody.

I'M WORKIN' ON IT

 

[DiabeticSydePhil]

Honestly I don't think the motion to swap judges is any particularly reason than that Nick reads his threads and while he can handle getting dunked on by a judge, he can't handle us all making fun of him getting dunked on by the vagina liquor judge.

This is purely to avoid getting memed by the internet because everyone knows he has an embarassing history with this judge.

Nick seems way more concerned with optics and thin skinned about mockery than he does legal strategy.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Barnes is the most disappointing thing about this. Dude represented the forum quite well in the Fatrick incident. People only had nice things to say about him. He's taking it way too personally about people' criticisms of his defense of Rekieta.

It's nothing about taking anything personally, it's about him being a grifter, which he always has been. It's not any more complicated than that. This is something that is very obvious.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

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.

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

It seems to me that Nick is NOT excluded under the felon status (he is not [yet] convicted), BUT he is excluded under the user of controlled substance status.

Or does this only apply to a purchase?

I suppose if they catch you with drug after you buy, they still slap you? It is assumed that if you want to be drug user, you get rid of guns?

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

See Q above. Does this only apply to buying, and not possessing?

Also, can he buy one from someone else and it not count with that 4473 form?

 

[WelperHelper99]

It seems to me that Nick is NOT excluded under the felon status (he is not [yet] convicted), BUT he is excluded under the user of controlled substance status.

Or does this only apply to a purchase?

I suppose if they catch you with drug after you buy, they still slap you? It is assumed that if you want to be drug user, you get rid of guns?



See Q above. Does this only apply to buying, and not possessing?

Also, can he buy one from someone else and it not count with that 4473 form?

Form 4473 takes effect when you purchase from a gun store. Private sales or gifts* check your local laws* do not involve Form 4473. A bill of purchase is recommended however if the police ever ask about your gun, even if you just write it in Microsoft Word, better than nothing. I believe the Biden admin has made Form 4473 a requirement for gunshows now, but double check me on that. Point is, Nick being able to get a gun is going to be difficult unless he has a buddy ready to sell right now.

 

[RodgerDodger]

This is purely to avoid getting memed by the internet because everyone knows he has an embarassing history with this judge.

Well everyone except Judge Fischer.

 

[Kosher Salt]

It seems to me that Nick is NOT excluded under the felon status (he is not [yet] convicted), BUT he is excluded under the user of controlled substance status.

Or does this only apply to a purchase?

I suppose if they catch you with drug after you buy, they still slap you? It is assumed that if you want to be drug user, you get rid of guns?

He hasn't been convicted yet, but he's excluded under that form because he's "under indictment".

There's no clear "user of" definition. However, possessing both guns and illegal drugs at the same time is a no-no.

See Q above. Does this only apply to buying, and not possessing?

Also, can he buy one from someone else and it not count with that 4473 form?

The form only applies to a purchase from a firearms dealer. He could legally obtain a firearm privately and I don't think he'd be violating anything unless he keeps it in the same house as drugs again. That would be unwise.

That being said, I would definitely want to speak with my personal lawyer before I did anything like this if I was in Nick's shoes.

 

[AnOminous]

This is purely to avoid getting memed by the internet because everyone knows he has an embarassing history with this judge.

I'm pretty sure it's because he knows this particular judge hates his guts and has good reason for it.

 

[DavidS877]

He could legally obtain a firearm privately

Some states require all purchases to use an FFL and thus a 4473 for a background check.
MN does not, but they have their own form for some items. Which could exclude Nick.


All the other items seem to require an actual conviction not just being charged. Even that item is vague if it would apply if he's no longer using.

The form is only for use when hanguns or certain rifles are transferred but the header implies it's applicable at all times.

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/Documents/Private-Party-Transfer-Form.pdf