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

[Gehenna]

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.

To expand on this, a shitty lawyer generally realizes they are a shitty lawyer or gives off other hints that are easy to read. Even Rekeita is aware enough to focus his 'expertise' on a single topic rather than claiming to be a good lawyer. Though a shitty lawyer who believes they are good is usually also easy to spot because their plans tend to be obviously flawed to even a layman.

No, the most dangerous kind of lawyer to their client is one who is arrogant and mediocre.

They know enough to sell their client on their bullshit but are nowhere near good enough to actually deliver. Poor Mignona was a victim of this. They are just competent enough to be actually dangerous. Ty beard is the poster child of this.

 

[Strix454]

An example of an appeal from Nick's attorney possibly with some relevance to Nick's future.

Donalonte Jamar Wade pled guilty to first degree aggravated robbery and got a deal where among the terms was that he had to be law abiding. As part of his plea deal, he got scheduled time off for knee surgery from home monitoring. He took his time off, didn't return on time and also got traffic stopped for expired tags whereupon they got him for 5th degree drug possession and driving with a revoked license. The court held that he had voided the deal and he got the punishment sentence for the assault.

White went to the court of appeals with a constitutional argument about how his client's deal should stand until his conviction on charges rather than being voided for having new charges. Me reading it, it was an argument that was never going to work. It was a complete waste of time and money.

 

[Potato CPA]

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.

I was wondering if this is a money-saving operation by Nick? Basically, since his & Kayla's cases are damn-near the same (in Nick's eyes) He is going to test-run filings only with him first, so he can see what will/won't work with Kayla.
They'll probably be defended by the same lawyer, but no need for extra expense to make duplicate filings until you know what you'll be getting first. Any possibility that's what he's doing? I would be shocked if they got different lawyers, unless they're splitting up. But current evidence doesn't point that direction.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Most people don't have the financial capacity to hire the singularly most expensive lawyers in the country. Which Crackets has before.

Even those that have that capacity rarely have it twice.

 

[Owlbear]

One thing that people may not realize is that being the client in these kinds of lawsuits with complex issues and weird legal theories can also be a lot of work, so people rarely do it as individuals. It takes a significant wealth cushion or someone else paying the bills to spend the time involved in managing two complex lawsuits, especially when the complexity is of your own making.

 

[Strix454]

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 think that most of the arguments go back to Barnes analysis of the warrant. His argument was:

- Nick was a critic of the judge who signed the warrant, the prosecutors and the police department. He had "exposed corruption" and none of them can be considered unbiased in any of the warrant process.

- A search warrant was entirely improper in the situation. CPS should only have done a wellness check on the children.

- Barnes claims that the standard for any investigation related to the children is proof of actual harm. He says that was no proof of actual harm.

- The police waited a week to execute a warrant into the home. Because the police waited a week, that proves that there was no imminent harm to the children and therefore the warrant is invalid.

- The pastor of the church had no firsthand information that anything was wrong with the children. Therefore his report should have been considered completely invalid and it cannot serve as any basis for probable cause.

- Its claimed that search warrants under the 4th amendment are only intended for exceptional circumstances and that none of the probable cause information shows that to be the case. That there was no proof of harm to the children and that personal drug use should never be grounds for a search warrant. Barnes claimed that search warrants should be constitutionally reserved for drug dealing accusations.

- Its claimed that everyone's constitutional rights at the scene were violated. Nick (according to Barnes) announced at the scene that he was the attorney for every single person present. But Nick was not allowed to talk to his clients or to be present during their questioning or normally represent them as an attorney within the process.

- Barnes also made a bunch of weird arguments about various laws that have been on the books for a long time are unconstitutional. I'm not going to bother listing those out.

- Certain noseguards have advanced the idea that the children were responsible for their own care and that rather than any issue of neglect, there was an issue of children behaving badly which only a matter for the parents to deal with and not the police or courts.

I'm not going to bother refuting any of these arguments. Its all been done before.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

You have to provide Brady material regardless.

A majority of prosecutors disagree with that premise given the amount of fuckery we routinely see.

 

[Swole McPole]

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.

The strip mall thing doesn't bother me as much as the fact that he seems to be a generalist. Little bit of contract, little bit of family, little bit of criminal, little bit of suing the military, etc. etc.

If I was hiring somebody to defend my liberty, I'd want somebody who specialized in criminal law.

It's also mystifying that Nick would spend stupid money to hire a really expensive lawyer to fight the defamation lawsuit that he could have made disappear with a quick apology and a few dollars, but when it comes to his liberty, he hires the cheapo strip mall guy. It all seems arse about face to me.

 

[indomitable snowman]

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

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
...
Hypocrisy

He had "exposed corruption" and none of them can be considered unbiased in any of the warrant process.

What corruption has rakets exposed. I have heard Barnes say that a couple times, but it's never elucidated.

- A search warrant was entirely improper in the situation. CPS should only have done a wellness check on the children

CPS might be involved too. If they are would those records be sealed due to children and not public record like everything else?

- The police waited a week to execute a warrant into the home. Because the police waited a week, that proves that there was no imminent harm to the children and therefore the warrant is invalid.

If they went immediately Barnes would complain about it being swatting or something. Surely waiting a few days to a week to understand the suspect is better than flying in blind and guns blazing.

 

[Mikoyan]

What corruption has rakets exposed. I have heard Barnes say that a couple times, but it's never elucidated.

I was going to ask that too. Rackets' criticism was centered around retarded judgments, not corruption.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
...
Hypocrisy



What corruption has rakets exposed. I have heard Barnes say that a couple times, but it's never elucidated.


CPS might be involved too. If they are would those records be sealed due to children and not public record like everything else?


If they went immediately Barnes would complain about it being swatting or something. Surely waiting a few days to a week to understand the suspect is better than flying in blind and guns blazing.

They didn't wait a week. They took time to investigate, validate and corroborate the Pastors reports before seeking and acting on the search warrant.

 

[WelperHelper99]

The strip mall thing doesn't bother me as much as the fact that he seems to be a generalist. Little bit of contract, little bit of family, little bit of criminal, little bit of suing the military, etc. etc.

If I was hiring somebody to defend my liberty, I'd want somebody who specialized in criminal law.

It's also mystifying that Nick would spend stupid money to hire a really expensive lawyer to fight the defamation lawsuit that he could have made disappear with a quick apology and a few dollars, but when it comes to his liberty, he hires the cheapo strip mall guy. It all seems arse about face to me.

I think it says more about Nick's financial situation than anything. Honestly I think his family has cut him off. Something has happened. You just have to follow the money, or lack thereof.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

A majority of prosecutors disagree with that premise given the amount of fuckery we routinely see.

That's a political view, not a statement of law. Under the law, Brady material meeting certain levels of relevance and impact must be disclosed, full stop.

In Bagley, in which the Court also confirmed that both exculpatory and impeachment evidence can fall under Brady, the Supreme Court stated,

We find the Strickland formulation of the Agurs test for materiality sufficiently flexible to cover the "no request," "general request," and "specific request" cases of prosecutorial failure to disclose evidence favorable to the accused: The evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A "reasonable probability" is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

We agree that the prosecutor's failure to respond fully to a Brady request may impair the adversary process in this manner. And the more specifically the defense requests certain evidence, thus putting the prosecutor on notice of its value, the more reasonable it is for the defense to assume from the nondisclosure that the evidence does not exist, and to make pretrial and trial decisions on the basis of this assumption. This possibility of impairment does not necessitate a different standard of materiality, however, for under the Strickland formulation the reviewing court may consider directly any adverse effect that the prosecutor's failure to respond might have had on the preparation or presentation of the defendant's case. The reviewing court should assess the possibility that such effect might have occurred in light of the totality of the circumstances and with an awareness of the difficulty of reconstructing in a post-trial proceeding the course that the defense and the trial would have taken had the defense not been misled by the prosecutor's incomplete response.

Building on Bagley, in Kyles v. Whitney, the Court held,

the prosecutor, who alone can know what is undisclosed, must be assigned the responsibility to gauge the likely net effect of all such evidence and make disclosure when the point of "reasonable probability" is reached.

Or as succinctly stated in the DOJ Criminal Justice Manual,

Because they are Constitutional obligations, Brady and Giglio evidence must be disclosed regardless of whether the defendant makes a request for exculpatory or impeachment evidence. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432-33 (1995)

 

[Mitt Doggy Dogg]

I think it says more about Nick's financial situation than anything. Honestly I think his family has cut him off. Something has happened. You just have to follow the money, or lack thereof.

Yea, atleast he hired someone and isn't trying to defend himself. Maybe he thinks the strip maul lawyer is Saul Goodman good or something, I wouldn't trust 20 years of my life to just anyone. I guess maybe he can't afford a good criminal lawyer, last time I talked to a good one it was 20k just to meet with me, and he only worked for the best lawyer in my area. I couldn't imagine what his boss would have charged. I would expect to fight a losing case like this it's gonna be a good 100-150k and you better pay them or they will request to be dismissed from the case.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Yea, atleast he hired someone and isn't trying to defend himself. Maybe he thinks the strip maul lawyer is Saul Goodman good or something, I wouldn't trust 20 years of my life to just anyone. I guess maybe he can't afford a good criminal lawyer, last time I talked to a good one it was 20k just to meet with me, and he only worked for the best lawyer in my area. I couldn't imagine what his boss would have charged. I would expect to fight a losing case like this it's gonna be a good 100-150k and you better pay them or they will request to be dismissed from the case.

Well he blew all the Rittenhouse money on coke and Randazza most likely. If he's still getting trust fund money, it probably isn't nearly as much as he was making with his streaming gig helping him double dip. This guy is just here to make sure he doesn't get completely mauled in court. He'll still get raped, but he'll live. That's the impression i get from his new council.

 

[AnOminous]

Nick gets everything for free and unredacted so it's not expensive to him.

So he should just release it for free, proving he's totally innocent of all charges and that nobody knows anything. He should totally own us Kiwi Farmers by showing those lying pig cops going through his absolutely immaculate home, finding no cocaine or drug paraphernalia or ketamine or Balldos, and utterly HUMILIATE US.

The footage where his kids are obviously happy and playing and not begging for food and washed clothes would completely FELT us.

He should definitely do that. We would all put on the Balldos and worship around his throne as Law Pope again.

 

[Strix454]

I was going to ask that too. Rackets' criticism was centered around retarded judgments, not corruption.

The best I could figure out is that Nick considers the case where the judge ruled against his client during sentencing to be a totally perversion of justice. This is the case where he had the tantrum that followed Judge Fischer out of the courtroom. I think he blames both judge and prosecutors for what happened. I could see him talking to other people as if it were corruption rather than him taking an "L".

From what I've seen, the issue is more Nick being unable to handle setbacks in the courtroom and, since Nick doesn't make mistakes, there has to have been something done wrong by a prosecutor or judge or even his own attorney.

 

[Mitt Doggy Dogg]

Well he blew all the Rittenhouse money on coke and Randazza most likely. If he's still getting trust fund money, it probably isn't nearly as much as he was making with his streaming gig helping him double dip. This guy is just here to make sure he doesn't get completely mauled in court. He'll still get raped, but he'll live. That's the impression i get from his new council.

Yea coke gets expensive, and atleast he didn't continue trying to represent himself. As I believe Lincon said, "a man who represents himself has a fool for a client". I can see the judge saying well since you don't respect this court and these charges enough to hire a real lawyer we're just gonna put you under the jail

 

[AnOminous]

Baring his teeth and putting on that he's prepared to dig in and fight is one way to try to get a good plea offer (another way would be show remorse and go to rehab... unsurprisingly, that does not appear to be Nick's style). We'll see if the prosecutor offers him a deal he can't refuse. If not, I suppose it'll go all the way, possibly including appeals unless the sentence is so light that the appeal would be a pointless waste of money.

Shitposting aside, when analyzing a potential legal strategy, you really have to separate all emotion from it. Coming out incredibly aggressively right out of the gate is an entirely valid strategy. If he continues pursuing it after it's obviously doomed, I'll criticize it then. Nick is obviously not the try to reform himself person, he's the asshole person, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong (from a legal perspective) to mount an aggressive defense.

If there's no request for discovery, the state isn't obligated to provide it.

That's actually not true. Under Brady, the state is required to provide exculpatory evidence whether or not it is requested, which overruled the previous rule that they didn't have to.

 

[Owlbear]

The strip mall thing doesn't bother me as much as the fact that he seems to be a generalist. Little bit of contract, little bit of family, little bit of criminal, little bit of suing the military, etc. etc.

I don't hate his list of specialties, and the guy is a strip mall lawyer so he sort of has to advertise "I'll do your basic contracts." Looking into his case history, he seems to mostly do criminal and military law. He also has done some appellate cases, and Nick is going to need that experience if he's going to run the Barnes game plan.

Nick needs a family lawyer probably more than he needs a criminal lawyer, and not because of the impending divorce, but because of the CPS case and related investigations. He also doesn't need the Randazza of criminal law, but just needs someone who can competently deal with motion practice (and negotiation with the prosecutor) and is quixotic enough to try his dumbass strategy.

Let's be real though. Nick hired this guy because he's been washing the balldo and Barnes told him that he's an ally.