- Joined
- Jun 2, 2019
JCPenny Lawyer lmao.
In reality I don’t want to disrespect the guy, but it’s too memeable to let slide.
In reality I don’t want to disrespect the guy, but it’s too memeable to let slide.
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Rekieta, Kayla Rekieta, April Imholte
- Thread starter Useful_Mistake
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
Yes. That's not really a bad thing though. The best attorney in the Vic case, Sam Johnson, was one. I think people are too unkind to strip mall lawyers. These people can't all work out of ivory towers.
Sadly, Sam Johnson wasn't on Vic's side. Lol.
I think if he's going with somebody some distance away, on the border with Wisconsin, and they have worked with Barnes, that suggests he is preparing to dig in and fight. The discovery demand is voluminous and suggests they're gonna attack the warrant, try to exclude evidence, and other things.
Fun! Fun! Fun!
If Nick is requesting the bodycam footage to dispute probable cause (which again is a stupid expensive and probably losing argument to make with four reports, one familial, and a drug task force agent watching your cokestream and then FINDING COKE which will probably invalidate claims of the supposed white powder sighting om the stream being overzealous), does this mean it has become evidence and will now be part of the public documentation?
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2015
Case dismissed because he didn't file a response to a motion to dismiss for five and a half months.
Sounds like a great fit for practicing law The Rekieta Way!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2020
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
Would Nick be bold enough to post the bodycam footage ahead of Null? TRY THAT GRIFT?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
Yep. Called it.
Going full on with the Barnes (esque) defense.
This probably ain't gonna be over any time soon. Settle in.
- Joined
- May 29, 2024
Anyone post what's on his attorney's Locals? I don't have a Locals account because I'm heterosexual and so can't see it.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
You know what is paying for those law firms in palatial buildings with lawns manicured like fucking Buckingham Palace? Your fees. They're paying for that shit instead of your representation.
One of my favorite law faculty was this kind of practitioner, from some fourth-tier law school, and he had tons of war stories about how he loved handing some Harvard faggot his own ass. (And his record spoke for itself. He wasn't just boasting.)
That said, unless he was already being paid at this point (or was seeking the representation), these tweets somewhat erode my esteem.
And again, that said, this is exactly what you'd be attacking. As the adage goes, the client is the captain of the case, moreso when the client is himself a lawyer, albeit an incompetent one. If the client insists on it, short of objective frivolity, the lawyer has to be willing to look like an absolute fool pushing the dumbest narrative imaginable (or withdraw from the representation).
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2023
He just made 5 posts, got 1 like and forgot about it. Here they are from oldest to most recent one:
I attached the PDF from most recent one since it is about probable cause so it is very slightly related to Nick's warrant. (wait a sec having problems getting the pdf to actually attach)
Edit: failing to get it to attach so here it is on catbox: https://files.catbox.moe/2jqrdh.pdf
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2023
Shop smart, shop cokesmart! At least they have that wonderful Men's Wearhouse for Nick to rent an outfit while pretending to be a non-practicing attorney still. Maybe he and April can hit Waterbed World after a few hours at the head shop.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2021
I guess my question is: if you attack the validity of the search, and not dispute that you didn't have the cocaine (all the other charges hinge on this), and you lose the battle about the warrant being invalid, aren't you fucked?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
I will just point out that this is also the first step in the dream of Pro Hac Vice Barnes going constitutional and speaking truth to power in small town Minnesota.
He doesn't have to be admitted right away, but we will know in the next month or so if he joins in.
- Joined
- May 29, 2024
All that means is that the evidence the state found can be used at trial. So yes, he's fucked.
@Corn Syrup Connoisseur I'll try attaching it myself
A Cardboard Box
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2019
That's not how it works. Invoking one defense doesn't preclude a other. The plan, I assume, is to attack the warrant on 4th Amendment grounds, and when he inevitably loses, try to win that argument in an interlocutory appeal while using some other defense for the rest of it. He's also likely going to try to attack specific items of evidence or specific witnesses to get them tossed.
Basically, if he really goes to the mat on this one, he's going to attack every individual piece of evidence from every procedural angle while simultaneously offering different, and probably contradictory, defenses as to why he did get found with the stuff.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
If he really does want to go to the mat, there's not that far for Nick to go. Having the cocaine in the house's master bedroom might be enough for the possession charge. All they needed to find the cocaine was the search warrant and have a reasonable idea that the cocaine was somewhere that he was frequently. He admitted that he and Kayla slept in the master bedroom already, and that's where they found the drugs, so either the search warrant gets invalidated or they have everything they need to prove the elements of the biggest crime on the list.
I assume the bigger set of issues here is the stuff we will never see around the children. I assume that just having cocaine in your house is not enough for child endangerment or child abuse, so there are a few other actual facts that need to get on record for that one. I have no idea about the gun charge, but I sort of assume it's closer to the drugs than the kids. This guy does have both family law and criminal law on his resume, though.
I assume the bigger set of issues here is the stuff we will never see around the children. I assume that just having cocaine in your house is not enough for child endangerment or child abuse, so there are a few other actual facts that need to get on record for that one. I have no idea about the gun charge, but I sort of assume it's closer to the drugs than the kids. This guy does have both family law and criminal law on his resume, though.
Thanks for the breakdown. I don't see how he's winning if the initial defense of "the evidence doesn't count" doesn't cut it since everything else was found in his house and seems to have little in the way of angles to work for defense, but I'm sure glad that's not MY problem to figure out.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
I don't know local practice for Kandiyohi Cty, but where I am there's a standard sheet you fill out for requesting discovery from the DA that's basically just "here's the case# and my info, send me everything you got." That sort of lengthy item-by-item list feels more like posturing, but maybe it's normal over there.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2021
But you know why that's so cool? Because it's so rare.
I don't shit on any (actual) lawyer's way of practicing. Some of the best are solos, and sometimes they have strategic or practical or preferential reasons for choosing a low-key office space. And I have an in-built appreciation for former military who go on to other professions. But let's be real: Nick loves the idea of being a poster-child for...something, and wants to be able to kibbitz and feel "heard" while doing it.
No. You're attacking the warrant on how it came to be, not on whether it ultimately had an accurate outcome. Because bad warrant = nothing from it can be evidence so no legal case. Remember, it's not always about literal truth but about provability and probity.
Legal arguments are often like the narcissist's prayer:
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
You had no basis for a warrant.
And if you did, you executed it improperly.
And if you didn't, you tainted evidence.
And if you didn't, you measured wrong.
And if you didn't, your techs are biased.
And if they aren't, I was manipulated.
And if I wasn't, it was just a mistake/bcrisis/ moment.
And if it wasn't, it was for her (or her).
And if it wasn't, I'm a good man.
And if I'm not, government sucks and fuck you.
And now that I could go to jail/be a felon, you're making an example of me UNFAIR.
And if I'm facing bog-standard penalties and it's not unfair, I'm sorry and will never do it again.
And if I do, it's because there's a target on my back.
And if there isn't, it's the kiwi farms' fault anyway.