And as I have pointed out, you are never, or almost never, going to win on an exclusionary rule defense (imo the only thing he even conceivably wins), at the trial court level. It's always going to the appeals court.
I don't see why you have a problem with it. He could be to criminal law as Ty Beard is to defamation cases. A definite win. For us.
Maybe a "better" lawyer wouldn't take his case because they didn't agree with Nick's legal strategy in dealing with the case.
“We are requesting the body cam footage of Officer Jimmy Goodshoes.”
Basically this guy is hired to contest the probable cause statements at the omnibus hearing (the only purpose of omnibus hearing). Apparently Barnes was happy with the way the guy lost the other constitutional challenges he made in appellate court. Nick's goal is to be the victim of the system.
Spoken like a true bootlicker. Nick needs to fight this to the bitter end and prove these incel prudes WRONG! It's typical of a bootlicker like you to question his strategy, as the LAW POPE, where he wins EVERY TIME, you PUSSY. How dare you question him?
So... Nick is hiring a politically inverted Doucette (Vic Mignogna lore).
Again, the working theory is that this was a personal recommendation from Barnes, because Barnes and this guy have worked together in the past. There is a legitimate possibility that Barnes comes on Pro Hac Vice.
Sounds very expensive. Especially when he is already paying two other sets of lawyers. One set for his defamation case, one for his criminal case, one for his CPS case. I don't think Rackets has enough money to fight all 3 and be able to afford the Cocaine necessary to raise his stress tolerance to deal with fighting 3 battles at once. Would it not be a more logical strategy to dispose of the defamation case and the criminal case as quickly and efficiently as possible to deal with the much harder CPS case?
This comment deserves ALL THE RAINBOWS IN THE WORLD. What's left of Kayla isn't sentient. She has no agency. She will do whatever Nick tells her.
I doubt Nick needed any convincing. He is incapable of admitting wrongdoing as demonstrated by his defamation case and about 1,000 other examples where he blew off legitimate criticism.
You underestimate how stubborn our boy Nick is. Look at his defamation case.
This is Nick Rekieta we are talking about. He has proven to be one of the most hate able scumbags in the legal profession who badmouths his colleagues on the air all the time and sabotaged his defamation case by talking about them on air extensively. I find that very plausible. Would you want to deal with a bad client that will instruct you to pursue a bad strategy that will badmouth and defame you on air when you fail trying to implement his bad strategy? And no doubt send countless shower texts?
The local attorneys in his area probably didn't return his calls lol.
To me, it suggests that Rekieta's money is running out assuming that he is thinking rationally. Big assumption I know considering that all of that drug and alcohol consumption must have damaged his brain and his ability to make rational decisions.
So "you can't prove that's my cocaine" is never going to work? What about "the kids were fine. Everyone gets hungry/smelly/dirty sometimes, that's just life".
