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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?


  • Total voters
    1,268
  • Poll closed .
Ask anyone here if we are responsible for any harassment someone else does. The answer is always no. The answer always uses the logic outlined above. Which is true, btw, we are not responsible for any harassment anyone else does.
Yeah, and I love it! Similarly, Nick Rekieta isn't responsible if one of his viewers harasses Aleisha Sweep. It's a great tactic, and there's only bad targets: The CPS worker overseeing Rekieta's case is a bad target. Chris Gesualdi is a good target. But let's not delude ourselves about what's really happening here.
 
They're there with popcorn wanting some shit to go down.
Nick: "but your honor I- I don't have anything against my children, I'm just saying they could have done a better job! The little leech ignored my warning about staying out of the stash and fucked EVERYTHING UP. But I love her and hope she gets a million foster parents."

The farms: "HE SAID IT. HE SAID THE THING!" *Champagne cork pops can be heard in very isolated locations around the world*
 
They have zero reason to offer anything.
The state pretty much always has an interest in a plea deal. Even the best facts in the world don't guarantee a win, a plea deal does. And trials are expensive and time consuming. As are appeals. Good facts don't make them less likely to negotiate, because those good facts can help them secure a more favorable deal. Avoid a trial and its costs and risks and still see justice done against Baldo.
In my experience, prosecutors tend to take plea deals off the table more for emotional reasons, like hating the defendant or their counsel. Given Baldo's history and behavior, that's not out of the cards.
 
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 impli 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.
Since @Kosher Salt made dozens upon dozens of posts sweeping for Nick in his civil lawsuit thread, they should know that when Rekieta called out Montagraph's lawyer David Schneider he would often specify the name of Schneider's law firm and location in Willmar, MN.

(It's not embedding properly; 9:08 of the below clip or click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4tkG5xqKAs&t=548)


The obvious reason to do that would be to advertise to his dents which law firm to blanket in fake reviews, which is exactly what happened. Nick knew his dents are not intelligent enough to actually find the law firm of some guy, even if they have his name and the county where he practiced, so he gave them additional information.

Well, at least one can be sure he will not blame the EVUL KEEWEE FAHRMS! for doing it! But he cannot blame his KEEDS and their innumerable activities that stress him out.

I guess that is why he settled on the BIG BAD GUBMENT IS AFTER MEEEEE! angle?
 
But not what someone who thinks the government is out to get him would do.
Here’s the thing. I don’t think he does believe that. He knows what he did, he knows on some level it’s wrong, he just doesn’t give a shit. It’s why they refused to release their initial drug screen to CPS and why they refuse to do any more.

He wants to do his drugs and drink his alcohol and party like it’s 1999, but he doesn’t want “government interference” in those activities (kids and their welfare be damned).
 
I kind of fear that Rekieta is going to get off light, Minnesota is a lib state who has been working to reduce sentencing for drug crimes. His child abuse charges weren't sexual and child abuse charges that aren't sexual aren't taken as seriously and to my knowledge have no federal minimum sentencing the same way say possession of child porn would.
Also he can afford to hire actually good lawyers is if he decides not to like a complete autistic then he might be fine. If he doesn't then move over Darrel Brooks Minnesota has a new champion of self representation.
 
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.
Yeah, there's also a thing called judicial/prosecutorial economy, where they would probably want to offer a deal even if their case were airtight. Just to dump some of the time and cost.

I don't think that deal would be great though. I just think it would be better than a sentence imposed after a guilty verdict. Especially now after he's decided to go the asshole route. The potential deal will get worse the longer this drags on.
 
What's most confusing to me about Nick's "the government is trying to silence a critic" angle is it hinges on Nick being a notable and active critic; in other words, actually doing legal work. Maybe if Nick had won a critical case and bloodied the nose of a local judge/prosecutor, or if he had a history of publishing literature critical of the government's handling of cases there could be a glimmer of truth to this stance, but as we're all aware he's a non-practicing lawyer who can't even contest a speeding ticket and his legal commentary tends to cover circus freaks and wAcKy cAsEs rather than anything that the government would be sensitive about. I know he's just grasping at straws and I shouldn't think too deeply about it, but it's amusing seeing his narcissism on full display for an aspect of his life where he is provably deficient. I hope he uses this angle in an actual legal argument so he can be laughed out of the room.
 
That would be pretty grim if Kayla actually fed her own kid cocain as a medication for acting out. Especially since the reason the kid was acting out was almost certainly an external issue to the environment she was living in.
Fuck man. And I was thinking I was doing a schizo theory at page 12 of this thread...
Sad is the day that I pray they only mentally injured their children.

They could've also given some of the drugs/ alcohol for one of the older children? I don't know how old is the older one. So I don't know if it is a reasonable possibility.
We are walking towards this being a real thing. Shit man. This is awful. Hope we don't go there.
 
before or after becoming a family annihilator?
That.... actually doesn't seem that unlikely. I could see him becoming a Christ Benoit-esque killer. Except it would be caused by cocaine and not steriods and CTE. Maybe we should consider informing whatever family his kids are living with that they should consider emigrating a few thousand miles away.
 
That.... actually doesn't seem that unlikely. I could see him becoming a Christ Benoit-esque killer. Except it would be caused by cocaine and not steriods and CTE. Maybe we should consider informing whatever family his kids are living with that they should consider emigrating a few thousand miles away.
"Male perpetrators may be driven by a loss of control, such as financial crises, divorce, or separation[...] Other factors: Family annihilators may have access to a gun, have a stepchild at home, or be estranged from their family. However, they don't usually have a criminal record."

"buildups of spite and resentment; previous domestic violence; acrimonious divorce and separation; bankruptcy; custody and access sessions denied or giving rise to concern; threats"

doesn't seem impossible. with his clear narcissism and all.
 
Well, he won't hit the mark on this one unless he's somehow found not guilty.
i'd imagine he would pull the trigger (no pun intended) if it looked like he was going to be convicted. right now he's fully convinced himself that he's going to win this and beat the system at its own game. going to be interesting to watch him as it becomes obvious he's cornered.
 
i'd imagine he would pull the trigger (no pun intended) if it looked like he was going to be convicted. right now he's fully convinced himself that he's going to win this and beat the system at its own game. going to be interesting to watch him as it becomes obvious he's cornered.
I hadn't even considered that.

"Me and my family will die as innocent people, as you can't find a dead person guilty..."
 
Ask anyone here if we are responsible for any harassment someone else does. The answer is always no. The answer always uses the logic outlined above. Which is true, btw, we are not responsible for any harassment anyone else does.
Nobody here has deliberately cultivated a following of braindead stream-watching parasocial simps. If you're a streamer you have a higher level of responsibility than a shitposter, because people who'll sit through eight hour streams are broken to an utterly unimaginable level, more animal than human, paying money for their internet daddy to call out their name as they chimper and gibber with dopamine.

Naming your enemies as a streamer is no different to putting an islamic fatwa out on somebody because you know damn well your audience are unsocialised dangerous subhumans and you know exactly what they'll do to win daddy's approval.
 
Naming your enemies as a streamer is no different to putting an islamic fatwa out on somebody because you know damn well your audience are unsocialised dangerous subhumans and you know exactly what they'll do to win daddy's approval.
I'm putting out an Islamic fatwa out on you
 
Back