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

[RodgerDodger]

Yeah, "8 year old daughter tested positive for regular cocaine use (or extremely high exposure levels. Like Columbian drug lab worker levels)" is going to make the Prosecutor and especially the Judge not be inclined to permit any soft rehab only deals. Especially not given the clear public interest this case has generated.

Nick is fucked so hard and deep that you will need medical imaging to find the Baldo.

This will make Nick's plans to challenge the Pastor and Scandanavian Incels fail hard. They reported something was not right with the kids and the family. The investigation has sofar fully vindicated the Nordic Nosebotherers concerns as well founded and legitimate. Shrieking "the church ladies had a vendetta against me" falls flat when your 9 year old tests as more coked up then Hunter S Thompson.

Above and beyond the criminal case, what this does to the CPS case is staggering. CPS always seeks family reunification. But drugs in the kids is one of those really bad findings. And it won't matter which adult was directly responsible. At this point, unless a retest shows clean or a clear testing error, which Nick's rantings seem to indicate no, Baldo and Our Wife will never see these kids outside of a courtroom until they turn 18. Best option is the Grandparents seek custody and guardianship until the oldest turns 18.

 

[theapropos]

He has to pay for every test. Also not sure if people realize but if his kids go into foster he is required to pay a form of child support for it. Everything CPS wants him to do he will have to pay for.

Because he wants to continue drinking. You can pay no bail and be tested or bail and enjoy all freedoms.

In his livestream he rather brazenly says he has nothing to apologize for, names and shames the CPS worker, and goes just one step shy of Sov Cit bullshit.

Any one of these could convince a prosecutor to take any deal off the table, with all three? Even as a shitty lawyer there is no way Nick doesn't know this nukes any chance for a deal. The man fully intends to fight this out of some monstrous stupidity,

You go for the deal right at the start. No prescutor will bother giving one now when all their resources are already wasted on legwork.and it's a slam dunk case at this point. They are winning. Nick has nomchance in hell. Time for a promotion

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

If the CPS finds something in the investigation that helps the state with it's other charges. Can that information be brought to trial or will the confidentiality for the children prevent or hinder that?

 

[mindlessobserver]

If the CPS finds something in the investigation that helps the state with it's other charges. Can that information be brought to trial or will the confidentiality for the children prevent or hinder that?

Absolutely the CPS can be brought in to testify in a criminal trial. The Kids could even be Subpoenaed to provide sworn testimony. especially the 16 year old.

Keep in mind, at this point Nick and Kayla are no longer their legal guardians.

 

[a hapless toad]

View attachment 6032926
Im still curious to know what this mystery powder is. Nik tests are those reagents that police use to field test things and apparently they can test every major drug under the sun including heroin and MDMA.
View attachment 6032934
Heres a chart of what they can detect.

I know everyone's now on to Nick's daughter testing positive for cocaine but I'd like to point out that Myrtle the Turtle previously posted this in reference to Nik field tests and the unknown brown substance.

 

[Gas Grass Or Ass]

This fucked.

Seriously, they were already pretty fucked when they were just looking at a presumption of neglect just by having the drugs and guns around, but at least in theory, they could have rebutted that and got a not guilty, and the prosecution would have been more inclined to use that charge as a plea bargaining chip.

Now, short of a second, better test that comes back definitively negative, they have actual, proven abuse/neglect. And this is just assuming the most benign interpretation of accidental exposure, but if there's been one constant in nickfuckery, It's Always Even Worse Than You Know.

While he may indeed be that stupid, even if he didn't plan to fight it all the way, he'd still present a front of doing that to have a better negotiating position. There also may be no deal on the table given the latest news, which substantially worsens his position.

So if he can't improve his position with a suppression motion, he's savagely screwed at this point, and good thing. Too bad a kid had to get poisoned by this absolutely subhuman piece of shit.

Rekieta, the greatest advocate in the world for transparency in court, will surely do the right thing and request that his own trial be livestreamed. One can hope...

 

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

Rekieta, the greatest advocate in the world for transparency in court, will surely do the right thing and request that his own trial be livestreamed. One can hope...

No you don't understand, livestreaming is meant to hold the government accountable, not to hold Nick accountable. This shouldn't be streamed because it will be the worst moments in Nick's career as he is getting fucked by the government who is making up shit about him.


If that doesn't make sense, I recommend upping your dosage of cocaine

 

[AnOminous]

Did you ever had any client as retarded as this?
Also how much more would you charge rekieta over your standard hourly and retainer fees?

I (almost) never had clients and generally did research/drafting and never had to deal with anyone directly. The vast majority of what I did was also not representational but either for administrative agencies or sometimes courts themselves.

 

[Gehenna]

I (almost) never had clients and generally did research/drafting and never had to deal with anyone directly. The vast majority of what I did was also not representational but either for administrative agencies or sometimes courts themselves.

This is likely why you make such a good legal commenter. I have noticed a difference between administrative lawyer and practicing lawyers (for lack of better terms). The former tend to know the law in more detail while the latter are more used to understanding the dirty tricks and arts of persuasion. When commenting, I have noticed the latter tend to lean towards biases and tactics which have worked for them but also lose track of the broader legal issues.

 

[Strix454]

If the coke test for the child holds up, I think Nick is legally done. Nothing he does or tries to do legally will matter much. They may offer him a plea deal, but will not negotiate with him on it and it will likely be no better than the judge would give him on a conviction.

With that test result on a nine year old, Nick has moved to horrorcow (or monster). There is unlikely to be any sympathy shown to him or his arguments anywhere in the legal system. Even the type of juror that might be otherwise sympathetic to a degree to someone like Nick will now hate him.

Barnes framed alot of his argument in terms of the warrant around issues of actual harm to the children. But if you have a nine year old test positive for long-term coke exposure, nobody is going to treat that stuff seriously. You have your actual harm now in a way that you can't fight and that isn't even vaguely subjective like hunger or dirty clothes.

The hair test is also impossible to overcome on lab objections or technical objections because they can just do the test over again. The positive test on the kid creates an iron link between the probable cause, the warrant and the pile of cocaine found in the house that I can't see any way to break.

The system in these situations favors probation so much that the odds are still that he will not do prison time. But a felony conviction now seems really likely.

The stream last night and the things he said really damaged his chances of getting the kids back. Going after someone in CPS by name was a very bad mistake. So was all that political paranoia and victim talk. So was the suicide baiting and they will have noticed that for sure.

The chance of him outright losing the Montagraph case is also reasonably good now.

Unless something changes with that hair test, he is just done in every sense of the word.

 

[repentance]

I guess we now know what Kayla's charge of "knowingly permit physical/sex abuse" is about.

 

[theapropos]

If the coke test for the child holds up, I think Nick is legally done. Nothing he does or tries to do legally will matter much. They may offer him a plea deal, but will not negotiate with him on it and it will likely be no better than the judge would give him on a conviction.

With that test result on a nine year old, Nick has moved to horrorcow (or monster). There is unlikely to be any sympathy shown to him or his arguments anywhere in the legal system. Even the type of juror that might be otherwise sympathetic to a degree to someone like Nick will now hate him.

Barnes framed alot of his argument in terms of the warrant around issues of actual harm to the children. But if you have a nine year old test positive for long-term coke exposure, nobody is going to treat that stuff seriously. You have your actual harm now in a way that you can't fight and that isn't even vaguely subjective like hunger or dirty clothes.

The hair test is also impossible to overcome on lab objections or technical objections because they can just do the test over again. The positive test on the kid creates an iron link between the probable cause, the warrant and the pile of cocaine found in the house that I can't see any way to break.

The system in these situations favors probation so much that the odds are still that he will not do prison time. But a felony conviction now seems really likely.

The stream last night and the things he said really damaged his chances of getting the kids back. Going after someone in CPS by name was a very bad mistake. So was all that political paranoia and victim talk. So was the suicide baiting and they will have noticed that for sure.

The chance of him outright losing the Montagraph case is also reasonably good now.

Unless something changes with that hair test, he is just done in every sense of the word.

I repeat they are winning this case. They have a positive search, positive tests on even a kid, an arrogant suspect, and streams trying to smear them everytime. They have zero reason to offer anything. Nick has been as asshole for the entirety of this investigation. Even if he begs later they will probably ask hjm to fuck off. Throwing the warrant on the floor was a great idea no?

 

[Kier Starmer]

Yeah I just cannot see how Nick will escape this likely, there is first time leniency but even now it's a stretch. If he goes in as we think with Barnes saying this is a set up to a Jury he'd look like a schitzo. Aaron knows more than he lets up and I think that is due to the prosecution telling him to not let leak certain elements of their case. I think the kid endangerment is going to be a focal point but I think too they will try to have the eldest testify. We know from Nick's accounts that they do not get along well with him. I am praying we get this case livestreamed it will be the most KINO event of the year.

 

[I'm not a Robot]

They have zero reason to offer anything.

Oh, there are reasons. That zoom call from prison illustrated one of them. They might be inclined to make a deal to avoid the circus.

 

[JamesWebbSlinger]

Barnes framed alot of his argument in terms of the warrant around issues of actual harm to the children. But if you have a nine year old test positive for long-term coke exposure, nobody is going to treat that stuff seriously. You have your actual harm now in a way that you can't fight and that isn't even vaguely subjective like hunger or dirty clothes.

I was curious if the self-professed Simp for The U.S. Constitution & valiant defender of Nick's violated rights had any comment upon the recent news. Robert Barnes has not made any statements on "X", but the last post he made on the matter was this, very appropriately for the horrible developments we have gotten:

(archive)

 

[Kosher Salt]

Not a great idea to potentially send his spergs after a cps worker. If she gets any harassment it’ll be an awful look for him.

He did not "potentially send his spergs after a cps worker". He named her, he claimed that she lied, but he never told anyone to harass her. Nobody has any plausible reason to think they need to harass her, and nobody should.

As for her being accused of lying, she took the job, and part of the job is that she's occasionally going to be called a liar by a defendant/subject of CPS investigation. I'm sure she can handle it.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

He’s going full Ronnie O’Neal. Most people here don’t think his lawyer will abandon him, but I hold hope that will do the most retarded nigger crack addict thing and eventually represent himself.

Nick isn’t a plane nose diving into the ground, he’s a bunker buster carving through bedrock.

 

[Harm]

He named her, he claimed that she lied, but he never told anyone to harass her.

No shit, that's the quiet part you leave unsaid. He didn't tell people what to do with that information, but the utility in naming her as the sole person lying to deprive him of his five children is to paint her as the villain and him as the victim. For the morons who are still ride or die for Nick, that makes her a target. The call to action is implied and he's lost the privilege of the benefit of the doubt and the plausible deniability that he didn't want anyone to do anything.

"My five children were taken away from me due to the baseless lies of Aleisha Sweep, but don't do anything about it! Tee hee!" Don't be naïve.

 

[Mikoyan]

No shit, that's the quiet part you leave unsaid. He didn't tell people what to do with that information, but the utility in naming her as the sole person lying to deprive him of his five children is to paint her as the villain and him as the victim. For the morons who are still ride or die for Nick, that makes her a target. The call to action is implied and he's lost the privilege of the benefit of the doubt and the plausible deniability that he didn't want anyone to do anything.

"My five children were taken away from me due to the baseless lies of Aleisha Sweep, but don't do anything about it! Tee hee!" Don't be naïve.

I'm surprised he restrained himself from spelling out her name slowly so everyone gets their searches right. Y'know, for comedic effect. Not for any like... harrassment thing HEY GUY(vocal crack)S? NOBODY SHOULD HARASS ANYONE.

 

[AnOminous]

The hair test is also impossible to overcome on lab objections or technical objections because they can just do the test over again. The positive test on the kid creates an iron link between the probable cause, the warrant and the pile of cocaine found in the house that I can't see any way to break.

They are actually NOT supposed to take into account the outcome of the search in determining whether it sufficiently states probable cause. They are only supposed to look within the four corners of the document itself. The only extraneous information relevant is, for instance, whether the police manufactured the evidence or otherwise engaged in misconduct to obtain it.

The search warrant could quite literally have arisen from the actual conspiracy of Scandinavian incel prudes with a grudge that Nick claims, but if the police didn't know that and, acting in good faith, based the warrant on what seemed like credible claims from a mandatory reporter, it would still be valid.

The exclusionary rule is by no means as broad as popularly believed, and may be on the chopping block if SCOTUS in its current composition revisits the issue.

Robert Barnes has not made any statements on "X", but the last post he made on the matter was this, very appropriately for the horrible developments we have gotten:

This is grandstanding. The mandatory reporter is not a lawyer and his legal opinion on something's evidentiary status is irrelevant. Deciding whether something adds up to probable cause is up to the cops, the judge who signs the warrant and, ultimately, the court deciding whether to go to trial.

It also only addresses one part of the evidence, not the totality of the circumstances, as probable cause for the purposes of a search warrant is adjudicated. Even if, granting purely for the sake of argument, the mandatory reporter and his secondhand hearsay evidence didn't add up to probable cause by itself, Nick doing an absolutely deranged cokestream, obviously blasted out of his mind on cocaine, and even returning from a "bathroom break" visibly jacked up even more, with cocaine literally on his nose, certainly did, and his obviously erratic and drug-induced behavior by itself would easily combine with the other evidence to imply a great likelihood of a dangerous environment for the children.