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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?


  • Total voters
    1,268
  • Poll closed .
Does the US have the equivalent of a McKenzie friend?
No, in the US lawyers have had a monopoly on giving legal advice since before the McKenzie friend was even a thing. Frankly, the McKenzie friend seems to be a consequence of needing a lawyer’s patronage to become a lawyer, rather than the US’s meritocratic-based system of the Bar exam.
 
Does the US have the equivalent of a McKenzie friend?
Yes, in the US there's something called a "jailhouse lawyer" which is someone who's been arrested on similar charges and finds himself in much the same predicament as you, and as a result thinks he's capable of giving you legal advice.

Does that sound like anyone? I didn't do it on purpose, honest...
 
We usually call that "convicted felon."
Yes, in the US there's something called a "jailhouse lawyer" which is someone who's been arrested on similar charges and finds himself in much the same predicament as you, and as a result thinks he's capable of giving you legal advice.

Does that sound like anyone? I didn't do it on purpose, honest...
A McKenzie friend specifically has the ability to give legal advice, usually without recourse for bad advice. What you’re describing is, while maybe functionally similar, rife with negative legal ramifications.
 
A McKenzie friend specifically has the ability to give legal advice, usually without recourse for bad advice. What you’re describing is, while maybe functionally similar, rife with negative legal ramifications.
Under Johnson v. Avery, prisoners cannot be barred in the negative sense from acting in a capacity that would normally require the services of a lawyer who is barred in the positive sense, "because it had the effect of barring illiterate prisoners from access to federal habeas corpus".

1717593826885.png

The negative association of "jailhouse lawyer" is almost as deserved as that of "lawyer". 100% of them give the other fraction of a percent a bad name.
 
Under Johnson v. Avery, prisoners cannot be barred in the negative sense from acting in a capacity that would normally require the services of a lawyer who is barred in the positive sense, "because it had the effect of barring illiterate prisoners from access to federal habeas corpus".

View attachment 6056387

The negative association of "jailhouse lawyer" is almost as deserved as that of "lawyer". 100% of them give the other fraction of a percent a bad name.
I guess. Like I said, they can be functionally similar but a McKenzie Friend doesn’t need the extraneous circumstances of incarceration. I may just be splitting hairs though.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Thé au lait
In the USA there are a few protected classes of faggots where you can get in trouble for "pretending to be a faggot" - doctors, lawyers, (real) engineers.

If you fuck around on kiwifarms and give bullshit legal advice, you're safe, it's fine. If you pretend to be a lawyer, various states can fuck with you somewhat.

Or to put it another way, you can tell someone what they could do in court, but the court won't recognize you as an advocate allowed to be involved.
 
I guess. Like I said, they can be functionally similar but a McKenzie Friend doesn’t need the extraneous circumstances of incarceration. I may just be splitting hairs though.
Well, they don't necessarily have to be incarcerated. That just happens to be where you'd tend to meet them, because by the time you'd need their services, that's where you are.

It's kind of like an emotional support animal. They can't pass the bar and sit next to you in your hearings, nor can they sign your documents, but the court can't stop you from taking their advice and bringing notes.
 
Magic underpants
I mean yeah lol, I'm Mormon. But for real, even putting the locking up the guns thing aside, Minnesota is not the place I would want to deal with a gun charge. As I said, it's mid. Utah as I alluded to, has some of the best gun laws in the nation. I'd imagine the opinion of Nick's judge is mixed at best on guns. It might not get tossed where it would in other states.
 
In the USA there are a few protected classes of faggots where you can get in trouble for "pretending to be a faggot" - doctors, lawyers, (real) engineers.
For engineers it's complicated. Most of the laws around it are state laws, and most places the protected term is "professional engineer". The majority of the time the word "engineer" is protected in any way is when the job involves public safety. I assume this is what you were alluding to with "(real)," but depending on what state you're in there are almost certainly real engineers that don't have the title protected because the job doesn't pertain to public safety, and there could be some not quite real engineeering titles that are protected (I think Florida protects a lot more than normal?)
 
Does the US have the equivalent of a McKenzie friend?
Generally speaking, not for appearing in actual proceedings, although I have seen it allowed in cases involving a litigant with diminished capacity.

"Unlicensed practice of law" is a criminal offense (George Clooney's character in O Brother, Where Art Thou? was in jail for UPL).
 
On another note, Nick has publicly talked about one of his daughters being violent. I wonder to what extent how that is being addressed (or not) will play into the allegations of neglect.
The first real red flag to me for their family being secretly fucked was the way that he talks about that kid. He went on some rant about how she's so random and weird and people just don't understand her, but the "quarky" character traits he was listing were just a list of the warning signs that a kid has been molested. I don't think he did it, but he seems determined to pretend it didn't happen.

If CPS figures it out they will flip shit. One of their biggest things they flip out about is not taking a child's allegations of sexual abuse seriously.
 
Utah as I alluded to, has some of the best gun laws in the nation.
John Browning's body is a rollin in his grave with anti-funs tards in SLC.

Strictly in the legal sense though, they're far enough away from the twin cities imho to be affected by that retardation there. If we look at the court hierarchy on how favorable it is to guns.
1) Trial court (Depends on trial judge)
2) MN Appeals - Tossup depending on judge
3) MN Supreme Court - Against
4) 8th circuit COA for MN - Against (Most are Clinton/Biden/Obama appointees)
5) 8th Circuit En banc review - Probably For
6) SCOTUS - (?)

I'll note that even thought the 8th and SCOTUS lean toward the 2A, there's a chance that § 922(g) be struck after Rahimi. it's up in the air since I found another case in the 5th district in Texas appealed to SCOTUS, we're still awaiting direction pending US. v Rahimi (22-915) from SCOTUS:
US. v Daniels (No. 22-60596) - Can a citizen be disarmed purely on history of drug usage (not currently intoxicated)?
Basically, cops and a DEA pulled over a guy with a loaded pistol + rifle, smelled weed and saw a used blunt. Arrested but challenged on appeal that since he wasn't presently intoxicated it was unconstitutional because there's no history of regulating this aside from using a firearm while intoxicated.
Throughout American history, laws have regulated the combination of guns and intoxicating substances. But at no point in the 18th or 19th cen-tury did the government disarm individuals who used drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another. A few states banned carrying a weapon while actively under the influence, but those statutes did not emerge until well after the Civil War. Section 922(g)(3)—the first federal law of its kind—was not enacted until 1968, nearly two centuries after the Second Amendment was adopted. In short, our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage. Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users. As applied to Daniels, then, § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment. We reverse the judgment of conviction and render a dismissal of the indictment.
I don't recall Nick being charged with intoxicated with a substance while driving.
I don't think he did it, but he seems determined to pretend it didn't happen.
I mentioned back in the PULL UP segmient of Nick in his thread the only way it gets worse if he gets caught molesting children. See, the "I want my kids to see my sex life" statement.
Embarrassing for a real HARD NIGGA that grew up in the HOOD! Doesn't know about the gunz..guns...
To be fair, niggas don't know much about guns either. Hence the stories of Rhodesians in the Bush War interrogating insurgents to find out they used the range adjustment because it mean the bullets would have more power, to gangbangers failing to hit the broadside of a barn from the inside, to people using them as a masturbation tool while loaded (Fun EMS story on that one). It's not hard to beat that absurdly low bar. There's a reason July called Nick a white bread ass nigga.
 
The first real red flag to me for their family being secretly fucked was the way that he talks about that kid. He went on some rant about how she's so random and weird and people just don't understand her, but the "quarky" character traits he was listing were just a list of the warning signs that a kid has been molested. I don't think he did it, but he seems determined to pretend it didn't happen.

If CPS figures it out they will flip shit. One of their biggest things they flip out about is not taking a child's allegations of sexual abuse seriously.
That's also CPS's MO
Nick has publicly talked about one of his daughters being violent. I wonder to what extent how that is being addressed (or not) will play into the allegations of neglect.
Do either of you have any advice for streams where he discussed this? I'm almost wondering if this might play into one of the charges
 
Nick's best shot is probably to submit motions to a judge that Nick hasn't accused of vagina liquor.
The good thing about doing it now is it's guaranteed, and it doesn't require actually insulting the judge. You just tick the box and it's done. Later on, if you have to file before the same judge to recuse, you have to get the judge to agree with you about a motion accusing them there there is (at least the appearance) of impropriety on their part. Good luck.
See below:
Subd. 3.Limitations. Subdivision 2 does not apply to a child's access to firearms that was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry.
This is a good limitation showing more thoughtfulness than you see from a lot of legislators. It basically means if you live alone you aren't obligated to secure your firearms against some retarded kid who breaks in and shoots himself somehow. Lawsuits over that kind of shit are infuriating, i.e. someone breaks into your house, pulls a Slippin' Jimmy and sues you.
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.
Judges aren't emotionless robots and he's been a completely obnoxious piece of shit to her, probably even on occasions we don't know about.
US. v Daniels (No. 22-60596) - Can a citizen be disarmed purely on history of drug usage (not currently intoxicated)?
Basically, cops and a DEA pulled over a guy with a loaded pistol + rifle, smelled weed and saw a used blunt. Arrested but challenged on appeal that since he wasn't presently intoxicated it was unconstitutional because there's no history of regulating this aside from using a firearm while intoxicated.
I think this kind of law is unconstitutional personally, so I'm on the same page as Barnes on that one, although I'm generally okay with the very last part, although I think there should be recklessness and endangerment components to it. I see nothing really wrong if someone wants to do a few lines and go blow up barrels of tannerite in their back yard shooting range, for instance, so long as it is some sparsely populated part of the boonies to the point it doesn't annoy the neighbors, and even then it should just be a noise nuisance if nobody is endangered.

This is America, after all.
As I said, it's mid. Utah as I alluded to, has some of the best gun laws in the nation. I'd imagine the opinion of Nick's judge is mixed at best on guns.
I'm generally pro-gun or at least pro-gun rights (they are just objects and I neither like nor dislike tools other than as to their utility), but it does give me pause when it means doped-up mental retards like Nick get to have them (although probably not going forward thanks to him having tarded out in an illegal way with them).
 
Last edited:
This is a good limitation showing more thoughtfulness than you see from a lot of legislators. It basically means if you live alone you aren't obligated to secure your firearms against some retarded kid who breaks in and shoots himself somehow.
It’s also a really good idea when fucking half of Minnieapolis is niggers under the age of 18 doing high crimes and misdemeanors. Getting party vanned because some dindu muffin broke into your house would be complete bullshit. This is the same insane state that continually prosecutes police for good shoots, mind you.
 
I'm generally pro-gun or at least pro-gun rights (they are just objects and I neither like nor dislike tools other than as to their utility), but it does give me pause when it means doped-up mental retards like Nick get to have them (although probably not going forward thanks to him having tarded out in an illegal way with them).
I agree and that's because I like guns. People like Nick fuck with my rights and make me look bad when I'm following the rules. He probably flags people at the range like no tomorrow, finger on the trigger because he's high as fuck.
 
Back