Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.

[indomitable snowman]

"life is hectic as hell in odd ways"

Haha look how quirky my life is. *Rackets holds up spork*

It is odd to have 3 ongoing cases. Most people are not involved in CPS, criminal, and civil cases against themselves.

 

[Train Operator]

Everybody with a brain recognizes that drugs should be legal for adults

Lolbertarian nonsense.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

Whoa, that's a broad brush you've got there

You chopped off the most important part.

Everybody with a brain recognizes that drugs should be legal for adults AND that adults shouldn't use them in ways that fucks over other people.

Drug laws are a societal construct to deal with damages. Usually damages to society and damage to others because of dickheads. We don't need laws if people don't hurt others while using drugs. Caffeine is the kind of drug with minimal damage and minimal laws. If people controlled their use of opiates, alcohol and meth in a way that did as little harm as caffeine, we wouldn't need laws for those drugs either. But dickheads like Rekieta view the legal limit as their only limitation. He's the dickhead that will make government drop driving BAC from 0.08 to 0.06. He's the dickhead that will force a caffeine limit law in drinks. Responsible adults don't need legal limits or even illegality at all. We wouldn't have street fentanyl at all if oxycodone was OTC and people used it responsibly - but dickheads use it until they can't function and start stealing to buy it. So they make laws to control it. It's like car insurance. Responsible adults don't need mandatory insurance laws or legal insurance minimums for same reasons. Dickheads like Nick make those laws necessary because they hurt others when they don't exist. The laws need to exist because some people are dickheads.

Lolbertarian nonsense.

Nah. lolbertarian don't believe there are dickheads. We need drug possession laws because of dickheads.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I wonder, will he ever have a come to god moment and actually try to unfuck this mess?

Anything is possible. So far, Nick Rekieta hasn't yet experienced in full the consequences of his actions. He spent a few hours in jail when he was booked, sure, but there remains a fair-to-middling possibility he'll do real time either in county or in prison. However hellish (or not) incarceration may be for him, time in a tiny concrete box tends to focus the mind. A hopeless and homeless drunk, I had my moment of clarity in a jail cell, for example, and called out to a God I didn't believe in to let me die or make me well. He made me well, for which I'm eternally grateful. Life is good.

So maybe, just maybe Rekieta will have a similar experience. You never know.

I doubt it. It will take a lot more than usual. Nick started in the Church, and perhaps it appears paradoxical, but that will make it harder for him to return. He already left the path, and it will take more for him to get back onto it. He is his own worst enemy for having rejected it once before.

Whoa, that's a broad brush you've got there! What drugs, specifically? The thing about "adults" is that it's such a vague term. "Adult" can mean anything from retarded 18 year old, retarded 21 year old if you're going by drinking age in America, to an 80 year old senior with mild cognitive decline/old people brain who's getting addicted to morphine and z-drugs.

Depending on what you're trying to say, I think that's a really bold assertion when the clear majority opinion, reflected in govt. policy and all is that adults can maybe get fucked up on weed because that doesn't really matter, but an adult who's done crack a bunch of times is no longer sane. Their reward pathways are so fucking cooked they're essentially a zombie, so why would you legally offer mentally ill, desperate people that accessible option? Why wouldn't you lock up a crackhead for possession (danger to self and others) or worse yet, why would you allow crack and heroin outlets to legally exist?

If I tone down the potential pol-sperging, I believe the general idea here is that 'the best legal system is one where the legal and moral system are identical and people self-regulate because they want to; not because they have to.' A utopian ideal, but a goal to admire.

I tend to think Nick will have a tougher time with either probation or rehab than prison. I wonder if he has the ability to stay clean on probation. Especially if its a few years. Rehab is going to be even worse for him because mentally he would fight it every step of the way and they would likely call him out on all his constant lying and gaslighting.

He has trouble with the first step.

If he cops a felony he's not keeping his license and not getting it back for some time, and unless you have some serious academic qualifications, six figure jobs just aren't available to lawyers who can't legally practice, never mind absolute incompetents who repeatedly and publicly bungled basic shit like traffic tickets, never mind with severe substance abuse issues who can't even take instruction.

'Disbarred and Disgraced Lolyer' would make a nice addition to the thread title. A licence suspension would really chap his arse, but it seems very difficult to do unless you show malfeasance in the practice of law or do something especially heinous.

 

[Fapcop]

There is no Cody Dennison/Camelot331 thread, there were only these two failed attempts:

Horrible crappy failed thread
In Off-Topic, 1 page, now locked

I keep repeating this, but I hope he never gets one. Unlike Nick today, getting a KF thread would be exactly what he wants, and he could milk/grift the shit out of it. Talking shit about him in all the other places he tries to inject himself into is good enough imo.

Why the f would anyone want a Coomalot thread?!?

He’s not funny, he’s not interesting. He’s not a lolcow. He’s barely lolcow-adjacent.

The weirdest thing about him is that he interviews/hosts with titty streamers, which is almost wholesome by KF standards.

 

[Rimanah]

If he cops a felony he's not keeping his license and not getting it back for some time

Do any of his charges constitute an ethics violation in Minnesota?
At least here in Texas, and in my (admittedly limited) experience, the only real way to guarantee the bar suspends/revokes someone’s license is for fucking with clients money, and to a lesser extent fraud related stuff. I’ve heard of some lawyers and even judges doing some pretty heinous stuff but still keeping their licenses.

I don’t doubt you, just curious what you’re basing that off of.

 

[Fapcop]

The person attached to church and who valued church was Kayla. Not Nick. Bringing Aaron & April to church and then eventually April alone to church was about her trying to normalize her poly and drug lifestyle by trying to include her personal family church in it. The church she grew up in.

I just wanted to point out that there’s no way Nick didn’t go to church with a giant, raging ODD boner over bringing his mistress to church with him.

While Kayla was sitting contemplating how God would surely be OK with the fact that she has two “husbands”, since God wants her to be happy, Nick would probably just casually put her hand on April’s thighs, while trying to lock eyes with the pastor or anyone who happened to look his way.

Those “breaks” he took in the service? Without a doubt to go out and jerk off at the thought of having one-upped those incel prudes.

 

[MechanicusAdmin]

Still sticking to that midnight streaming timeslot hey Nicky. Must be sweet to be able to sleep all day with no kid duties to worry about.

 

[ShinyStar]

You chopped off the most important part.

Everybody with a brain recognizes that drugs should be legal for adults AND that adults shouldn't use them in ways that fucks over other people.

The problem you are ignoring is that drugs are chemicals that damage the brain in areas that allow it to make responsible decisions. When your premise is, "Let's freely allow people to responsibly use this thing that causes them to be irresponsible," then you've already lost the argument.

The reasons why some drugs are legal and some aren't pair up rather neatly with how irresponsible they cause people to behave.

 

[Strix454]

A licence suspension would really chap his arse, but it seems very difficult to do unless you show malfeasance in the practice of law or do something especially heinous.

From a Minnesota Document:

"Felony criminal convictions will always lead to public discipline but do not always lead to disbarment if the convictions are for conduct outside the practice of law."

LINK

The most likely form of discipline is a suspension.

 

[AltisticRight]

Rackets, conservatively, has 40 Iq points on Ralph.

85 sounds about right for this skeletal nigger.

 

[AnOminous]

Do any of his charges constitute an ethics violation in Minnesota?
At least here in Texas, and in my (admittedly limited) experience, the only real way to guarantee the bar suspends/revokes someone’s license is for fucking with clients money, and to a lesser extent fraud related stuff. I’ve heard of some lawyers and even judges doing some pretty heinous stuff but still keeping their licenses.

Serious substance abuse automatically calls into question your competence to practice law. They have to suspend licenses all the time for drug offenses that do that, and just having nearly an ounce and obviously being out of control while continually blowing off basic legal issues shows he can't even handle his own legal issues, much less anyone else's.

Just a joint or a DUI with no indication of incompetence? It's often not even really an ethics issue. Abusing your kids because you're so whacked out on the ounce level quantities you consume? Definitely. A felony conviction always triggers at least a look into what it's about.

"Felony criminal convictions will always lead to public discipline but do not always lead to disbarment if the convictions are for conduct outside the practice of law."

LINK

The most likely form of discipline is a suspension.

Public discipline can range from a mere reprimand with no legal impact other than in potential future disciplinary cases (or in theory insurance coverage) to disbarment. Even misdemeanors, or torts implicating honesty can, as can even behavior that doesn't result in criminal prosecution, like showing up drunk to court and the judge doesn't hold you in contempt but does report it to the bar.

I think a felony conviction would certainly lead to a suspension, with a requirement to demonstrate sobriety and competence, and possibly a probationary period of practice under another lawyer's supervision. A misdemeanor might, too. Even the bar merely deciding his conduct indicates he has a substance abuse issue that renders him incompetent could do that.

A suspension for such reasons is not necessarily an ethics issue, especially if the lawyer's conduct has not actually caused substantial harm to anyone. For instance, you'll sometimes hear of a lawyer suspended for senility.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

The problem you are ignoring is that drugs are chemicals that damage the brain in areas that allow it to make responsible decisions. When your premise is, "Let's freely allow people to responsibly use this thing that causes them to be irresponsible," then you've already lost the argument.

The reasons why some drugs are legal and some aren't pair up rather neatly with how irresponsible they cause people to behave.

My premise is that the presumption is no regulation. That's a truism. Then dickheads make regulation necessary. The law never allows, it always restricts. And it restricts to limit damage. Money, sex and drugs are all things that "cause" people to act irresponsibly. Those things aren't why we need laws, though. It's dickheads that hurt people to acquire or use those things.

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

What do you guys think about the ending of this arc? Will he get redemption or Nosedive straight into hell?

A slow descent into a hell of his own making. Nick has far too many resources for consequences (that he cares about) to catch up with him in a hard and fast enough manner to make him realize that NICK is the problem in Nick's life. His life will get progressively worse, he'll continue to point the finger at anyone trying to help, and he'll become more and more miserable every day until he's nothing more than a spooky skeleton animated by hate and spite.

 

[East_Clintwood]

Do any of his charges constitute an ethics violation in Minnesota?
At least here in Texas, and in my (admittedly limited) experience, the only real way to guarantee the bar suspends/revokes someone’s license is for fucking with clients money, and to a lesser extent fraud related stuff. I’ve heard of some lawyers and even judges doing some pretty heinous stuff but still keeping their licenses.

I don’t doubt you, just curious what you’re basing that off of.

I've posted several times about this topic, using press releases from the MN Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, if you wanna search my posts. The tl:dr is that full on disbarment is super rare in MN, and almost exclusively reserved for fucking with client money. They do however somewhat regularly hand out suspensions of up to 5 years for general disciplinary issues, which includes non-client related felonies and the like.

 

[Mourning_Cloak]

I just wanted to point out that there’s no way Nick didn’t go to church with a giant, raging ODD boner over bringing his mistress to church with him.

Reckon what story the church folks were given by the Rackets as to who the Amholtes are and why they're at the house all the time. Sure, they're all functioning adults capable of using Google but the Rackets probably didn't think about that (because druggie logic), and I doubt they would just flat out tell the congregation about the Qover.

 

[Accidental Protege]

I think a felony conviction would certainly lead to a suspension, with a requirement to demonstrate sobriety and competence, and possibly a probationary period of practice under another lawyer's supervision. A misdemeanor might, too. Even the bar merely deciding his conduct indicates he has a substance abuse issue that renders him incompetent could do that.

He's probably going to catch another violation when he ultimately fails to cooperate with the Minnesota Bar's attempt at an investigation. I won't be surprised if they turn out to be following all this and end up throwing the book at him. They'll probably suspend his license and make him subject to certain requirements if he wants to practice again, like having a supervising lawyer for a year and demonstrating that he's committed to recovery if not completely sober. Then again, he's never had any prior discipline. This seems like kind of an extreme case wih the public nature of it all.

 

[Vibralldo]

Those “breaks” he took in the service? Without a doubt to go out and jerk off at the thought of having one-upped those incel prudes.

And to do cocaine (because it's FUNNY and the congregation just doesn't get it!)

 

[Dr Naomi Hunter]

He’s now pushed it back to 12:30 am. Give me all the rainbows but he has just done a drug run. He can’t even blame this timeslot on a kids visit or midnight piano recital. What else could he be doing? (Other than April)

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Has Nick ever explained why his “heat allergy” is immune to the effects of a literal hot tub?