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

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?


  • Total voters
    1,268
  • Poll closed .
I tried digging through his Twitter when I found it but god it's such a repulsive pain. Endless 'gotchas', boomer-tier memes, unfathomable sneeding about Trump's legal situation and the fact that Biden has the audacity to be alive, picking fights with PETA as if they have any relevance at all in the modern day, etc. And he tweets SO MANY TIMES A DAY. It honestly reads like a politically-inverse plebbitor farming for updoots. Hiring a vindictive, twitter-brainworms lolyer does seem a Crackets thing to do though.
scrolling through his media tab is hilarious. He tweets the same retarded boomer memes over and over, most of them just comparing anyone he doesn't like to mustache man. He has tweeted each of these well over 20 times.
1718373480671.jpeg
1718373756582.jpeg

1718373808224.jpeg
1718373539903.jpeg
1718373900192.jpeg
1718373914011.jpeg
 
What are the odds Whitey pegged Nick (I'm not sorry) as an easy mark based on Nick's statements to convince Nick to pay him money to fight the warrant?

I wouldn't put it past a lawyer to see Nick making an argument and then make that same argument where Nick would see it as an advertisement of their services.
 
In case you were wondering who Nick was facing, it's a lawyer with equally unimpressive credentials,
What exactly are you expecting?
  • Junior Associate at White & Case
  • Clerk for Justice Allito
  • Cum Laude from UVA Law
Most attorneys across America have unassuming pedigrees and are "strip mall lawyers."

My main point is that Nick (Nick's dad, the person who's actually paying) could hire someone from a decent firm in the twin cities, and she would likely be outclassed.
Nick's Dad could go hire a squad of murderers from Kirkland & Ellis, and it won't change a thing on a case like this. Sometimes you can buy your way out of trouble, but this isn't likely to be one of those times.

Having the cocaine in the house's master bedroom might be enough for the possession charge.
It's more than enough for the possession charge. Nobody is going to buy "It was Kayla's, I didn't know it was here" or "It's my cousin's safe"

If he loses the suppression motion, he's fucked.
 
The more I look at that attorney's social media, the more the guy seems as crazy or crazier than Barnes. He almost seems like a guy who aspires to be a Barnes but mostly does everyday stuff to pay the bills.

Threatening the prosecutor in a small county with an enormously expensive and time consuming case is a valid strategy in this kind of thing. But I really wonder if Nick still has the sort of money to pull that strategy off. As well, if you were going with that kind of strategy of spending money, I personally would have picked an entirely different attorney than this guy. There are experienced and really good criminal defense attorneys who get all on board with a strategy of trying to win a case through spending.

The other problem I see is that I still don't see a legal argument against the probable cause or that is going to get rid of the warrant. And you are going to need a legal argument to be able to do anything in the court of appeals.
 
Last edited:
Nick’s Dunning-Kruger bites him in the ass again. For a self-described “shitty lawyer that can surprise people with how much he knows constitutional law”, he has this bizarre habit of taking extremely convoluted or highly technical defense strategies in his own lawsuits and it’s literally never paid off.
As it turns out, knowing "constitutional law" really well is about as useful to most lawyers as knowing the lore of Warhammer 40k. Constitutional issues rarely come up in cases, and when they do it's a massive pain in the ass for everyone. Going to the constitution means overturning existing law, which is a pain.
It feels like Nick is attacking this through two separate vectors. There's the legal vector where he has this lawyer attacking the validity of the search warrant, but there's a second vector where Nick is schmoozing the people prosecuting his case. He's talked on stream about how he knows the prosecutor and he really likes her, he's posturing that he got rid of all the booze and how it was so easy (unlike quitting Everquest), and he's putting on a fresh coat of paint with the haircut and these "gotta pick yourself up because GOD LOVES ME!" Instagram posts.
This is sort of an expected hedge, honestly. He is also trying to rehab his public image, and it's not generally good to go around insulting people like "vagina booze" Fischer. If he can figure out how to maintain the idea of "my lawyer is the asshole and I am a contrite good boy" then it the best way for him to appear. IMO that is one of the main reasons why even highly-skilled lawyers should not represent themselves.
 
He has a working relationship with Barnes. The current working theory is that this guy was directly recommended by Barnes and there's potential for Barnes to come on as Pro Hac Vice.
Because there is nothing that local criminal courts love more than insane "Constitutional Scholars" showing up in their courtroom in order to present novel theories of the law and constitution in an open and shut Narcotics Case involving Child Neglect. Complete with their attempt at a media circus. The celebrity attorney may get some more camera time. But their idiot client is always completely fucked. Barnes is like a Right Wing Libertardian version of Gloria Alred or Benjamin Crump. This never works out well for the poor client they are representing. Often pro bono.
 
Hypothetically, might a defendant / lawyer file a Demand for Disclosure just to know their position before plea bargaining? Assume a non-Balldo defendant.
Everyone requests discovery

The prosecutor, without any request, would have provided everything they will present at trial. All exhibits, numbered and catalogued, all witness lists, all witness statements, all exculpatory evidence including any Brady list cops being called.
If there's no request for discovery, the state isn't obligated to provide it.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Vecr and Mankirk
What exactly are you expecting?
  • Junior Associate at White & Case
  • Clerk for Justice Allito
  • Cum Laude from UVA Law
Most attorneys across America have unassuming pedigrees and are "strip mall lawyers."
Nah, the minimum is Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and a partnership at Cravath. /sneed

Many strip mall lawyers and small town prosecutors have spent at least 1-2 years in their equivalent of "big law" before retiring to a strip mall or a small town. That can be "prosecutor in the big city," it can be something like Cravath or White & Case, or it can be a local major firm. These markers could be missing for personal reasons, but it also could be (more likely IMO) that you weren't good enough to get in. It doesn't help that her law degree is from a shit-tier law school, indicating that she also couldn't get in anywhere better for that.

So yes, she got a law degree, but it was from Nick Rekieta's law school. She clerked for a judge, but it's the lowest of the low of clerkships: the lowest appellate court in a circuit with no major cities. She worked for a law firm, but it's a small local firm in a small town. Then she became a prosecutor in that same small town. Her resume displays no signs of excellence. It displays a solid track record of C-tier mediocrity.

Also, the judicial nomination means very little about her skill with the law: lawyers joke that you call the idiot who got D's in law school "your honor."

I'm not suggesting that she's anywhere near Nick Rekieta, who has never clerked for a judge, worked for a firm, or even really won a case. Rekieta would be so low down in F tier that he defines his own tier. She's still going down in my book as "significantly below average," though.

Not that any of this matters - I assume she's competent enough to defend this particular search warrant against even the aforementioned Cravath lawyer from Harvard.
 
Last edited:
Nah, the minimum is Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and a partnership at Cravath. /sneed

Many strip mall lawyers and small town prosecutors have spent at least 1-2 years in their equivalent of "big law" before retiring to a strip mall or a small town. That can be "prosecutor in the big city," it can be something like Cravath or White & Case, or it can be a local major firm. These markers could be missing for personal reasons, but it also could be (more likely IMO) that you weren't good enough to get in. It doesn't help that her law degree is from a shit-tier law school, indicating that she also couldn't get in anywhere better for that.

So yes, she got a law degree, but it was from Nick Rekieta's law school. She clerked for a judge, but it's the lowest of the low of clerkships: the lowest appellate court in a circuit with no major cities. She worked for a law firm, but it's a small local firm in a small town. Then she became a prosecutor in that same small town. Her resume displays no signs of excellence. It displays a solid track record of C-tier mediocrity.

Also, the judicial nomination means very little about her skill with the law: lawyers joke that you call the idiot who got D's in law school "your honor."

I'm not suggesting that she's anywhere near Nick Rekieta, who has never clerked for a judge, worked for a firm, or even really won a case. Rekieta would be so low down in F tier that he defines his own tier. She's still going down in my book as "significantly below average," though.

Not that any of this matters - I assume she's competent enough to defend this particular search warrant against even the aforementioned Cravath lawyer from Harvard.
The thing is, c-tier mediocrity is exactly what most people need in a lawyer. As long as they themselves realize that is where they are at for skills. They won't overextend with unlikely attempts nor give outright terrible advice. they will give you simple, solid legal counsel and be able to navigate the byzantine legal process better than you. Neither great nor terrible legal aide honestly does cover most criminal and civil cases requirements.

The fact that Rikieta is an F tier who believes himself to be an A is part of why he is such a miserable failure.
 
So yes, she got a law degree, but it was from Nick Rekieta's law school. She clerked for a judge, but it's the lowest of the low of clerkships: the lowest appellate court in a circuit with no major cities. She worked for a law firm, but it's a small local firm in a small town. Then she became a prosecutor in that same small town. Her resume displays no signs of excellence. It displays a solid track record of C-tier mediocrity.

She exactly fits the profile of the sort of person will fills those lower positions out in rural minnesota counties. She is competent and has a work ethic, but is undistinguished legally or academically. She is from the area and probably was the third smartest person in her high school. She ticked all the right boxes in her legal career in the most standard way possible and has been put into a position in the prosecutors office that is ideally suited to her talents and level of ability.

She is also an almost ideal candidate to someday cap her career off as a judge out there. She is a probably a family person, a community person and so on.

95% of the cases in a place like that are going to be so absolutely routine. So routine that they can almost be prosecuted off a script. The operative phrase is "horses for courses". The legal system as a whole needs people exactly like her in places like that.

She is going to go in there, present the coke, present the guns and probably present whatever was found out after about the children. I'm almost certain that the judge will shoot down anything questioning the warrant and that those issues will be decided in an appeals court where she will be given the appropriate help. And if Nick's attorney starts raising all kinds of crazy constitutional or novel legal ideas, the judge will probably shut that down too.
 
The more I look at that attorney's social media, the more the guy seems as crazy or crazier than Barnes. He almost seems like a guy who aspires to be a Barnes but mostly does everyday stuff to pay the bills.

Threatening the prosecutor in a small county with an enormously expensive and time consuming case is a valid strategy in this kind of thing. But I really wonder if Nick still has the sort of money to pull that strategy off. As well, if you were going with that kind of strategy of spending money, I personally would have picked an entirely different attorney than this guy. There are experienced and really good criminal defense attorneys who get all on board with a strategy of trying to win a case through spending.

The other problem I see is that I still don't see a legal argument against the probably cause or that is going to get rid of the warrant. And you are going to need a legal argument to be able to do anything in the court of appeals.
It may be simply that this is who he could get for what he is willing to pay to do this "maybe I'll make it to the Supreme Court!" or at least "maybe I'll intimidate or at least inconvenience and annoy them enough that they'll bow to my demands for them to drop everything or at least let me do a diversion on a misdemeanor charge, at which point I am Vindicated, Exonerated, Innocent, Defeater of overreaching government and Vanquisher of Scandinavian prudes." Take that, Pastor Dave and concerned congregation!

As it turns out, knowing "constitutional law" really well is about as useful to most lawyers as knowing the lore of Warhammer 40k. Constitutional issues rarely come up in cases, and when they do it's a massive pain in the ass for everyone. Going to the constitution means overturning existing law, which is a pain.

This is sort of an expected hedge, honestly. He is also trying to rehab his public image, and it's not generally good to go around insulting people like "vagina booze" Fischer. If he can figure out how to maintain the idea of "my lawyer is the asshole and I am a contrite good boy" then it the best way for him to appear. IMO that is one of the main reasons why even highly-skilled lawyers should not represent themselves.
A lawyer only does what a client permits. And with a lawyer/"lawyer" client, he has no veneer of "I just trusted my lawyer on his obnoxious strategy, clean hands here." IMO, but I suppose it could play to the willing or the uninformed.

Everyone requests discovery


If there's no request for discovery, the state isn't obligated to provide it.
You have to provide Brady material regardless.

Nah, the minimum is Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and a partnership at Cravath. /sneed

Many strip mall lawyers and small town prosecutors have spent at least 1-2 years in their equivalent of "big law" before retiring to a strip mall or a small town. That can be "prosecutor in the big city," it can be something like Cravath or White & Case, or it can be a local major firm. These markers could be missing for personal reasons, but it also could be (more likely IMO) that you weren't good enough to get in. It doesn't help that her law degree is from a shit-tier law school, indicating that she also couldn't get in anywhere better for that.

So yes, she got a law degree, but it was from Nick Rekieta's law school. She clerked for a judge, but it's the lowest of the low of clerkships: the lowest appellate court in a circuit with no major cities. She worked for a law firm, but it's a small local firm in a small town. Then she became a prosecutor in that same small town. Her resume displays no signs of excellence. It displays a solid track record of C-tier mediocrity.

Also, the judicial nomination means very little about her skill with the law: lawyers joke that you call the idiot who got D's in law school "your honor."

I'm not suggesting that she's anywhere near Nick Rekieta, who has never clerked for a judge, worked for a firm, or even really won a case. Rekieta would be so low down in F tier that he defines his own tier. She's still going down in my book as "significantly below average," though.

Not that any of this matters - I assume she's competent enough to defend this particular search warrant against even the aforementioned Cravath lawyer from Harvard.
Competence doesn't require brilliance. And this isn't a complicated case. Thus, "bury them in paper" and rattle Constitutional swords in the hope of just exhausting limited prosecutorial resources, and in the meantime try to make some news and maybe hit the attorney's pet project (idk if it is his pet project, but his SM history suggests it might be one political interest).
 
The thing is, c-tier mediocrity is exactly what most people need in a lawyer. As long as they themselves realize that is where they are at for skills. They won't overextend with unlikely attempts nor give outright terrible advice. they will give you simple, solid legal counsel and be able to navigate the byzantine legal process better than you. Neither great nor terrible legal aide honestly does cover most criminal and civil cases requirements.
Another C-tier mediocrity of a lawyer who also displayed no signs of excellence is a man named Tyrone Beard. They absolutely can overextend and they absolutely can give you shit advice and tank your case. They usually won't if you catch them in their specialty, which is what is happening here.
95% of the cases in a place like that are going to be so absolutely routine. So routine that they can almost be prosecuted off a script. The operative phrase is "horses for courses". The legal system as a whole needs people exactly like her in places like that.
Absolutely, and she's pretty well-suited to handle this case. It's an easy one with a few procedural things, and it gives her the opportunity to have mercy on a guy who fucked up and needs some guidance to recover from being a druggie and return to being a wholesome chruchgoing family man. There's no way she'll do her own appellate work if Nick has his lolyer there. She just needs to run the script and otherwise display mercy and empathy, which she seems perfect for.

A theme of what we see in the Rekieta vs Monty case is that Randazza's writing and argumentation is just better than Schneider's. That is very likely to be the case here, too. It so far hasn't mattered with Monty (it's gotten close, though) and is very unlikely to matter here.
She is going to go in there, present the coke, present the guns and probably present whatever was found out after about the children.
Not if she eats them all first.
Thus, "bury them in paper" and rattle Constitutional swords in the hope of just exhausting limited prosecutorial resources, and in the meantime try to make some news and maybe hit the attorney's pet project (idk if it is his pet project, but his SM history suggests it might be one political interest).
I am not so optimistic that "bury them in paper" is going to work on a case that can carry a $500,000 fine if found guitly. It works for traffic tickets and petty misdemeanors, but the state can easily recover their expenses if Rekieta decides to go full retard.
 
I haven't been following the Noseguards on Twitter. I have read the warrant application.

What do they say are the problems with the warrant?
 
I found an interesting case by Francis Herbert White III. White seems like Fleet Admiral Spectre's kind of guy. A very odd case for a former Air Force guy to take.


Mikhail Robin Wicker, aka Michael Robin Wicker, has been charged with wire fraud for allegedly falsifying documents to earn benefits to which he was not entitled.

Prosecutors claim Wicker spent years falsely claiming that he served with Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division
[He never served at all]

Wicker, 37, is accused of falsely claiming that he was wounded in combat and that he was held as a prisoner of war in Iraq from February 25 to March 4, 2005

.....

Francis Herbert White III, Wicker’s attorney, told Task & Purpose on Friday that his client is innocent.

“I think we need to let the government attempt to prove their case,” White said. “All I need to say is that he is not guilty of the crimes for which he has been charged. We will let this play out in the court.”

When asked if he was asserting that Wicker never claimed to be a prisoner of War, White replied, “I didn’t say that.”

“I said he is not guilty of the crimes for which he has been charged,” White continued.


He faked his way into getting $1000 a month for his military disabilities and the government asserts that he frauded his way into maybe $150k total worth of stuff he wasn't entitled to.

This case is ongoing in federal court.

Yeah. Everything I find about him just says this guy is perfect for Nick.
 
Another C-tier mediocrity of a lawyer who also displayed no signs of excellence is a man named Tyrone Beard. They absolutely can overextend and they absolutely can give you shit advice and tank your case. They usually won't if you catch them in their specialty, which is what is happening here.
Ty beard is the exact reason I added that bit about realizing one's own ability. Beard believed himself to be a grand chessmaster, and in reality was C tier at best. He is the exact kind of lawyer you need to avoid the most.
 
Francis White signed the "DEFENDANT’S DEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE". Kayla's still has not been posted.
View attachment 6087308
My guess would be that we'll be seeing her own lawyer file her demand for discovery pretty soon. Nick's lawyer just got around to it quicker. Also I note that White filed his certificate of representation concurrently, which fits what I said earlier about not bothering to file that until needing to file something else.
 
Back