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.

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

Why is Nicholas Rekieta offline?

  • He's spending time with his family, NERDS.

    Votes: 71 10.7%
  • He pissed hot and he's in trouble!

    Votes: 94 14.2%
  • Yet another "family incident" happened.

    Votes: 208 31.4%
  • His lawyer ordered him to shut up.

    Votes: 174 26.2%
  • He's busy procuring the 5k LOCALS gift.

    Votes: 65 9.8%
  • He's dead.

    Votes: 51 7.7%

  • Total voters
    663
Is an Alford plea allowed in MN? I'm also sure CPS will not look kindly on an Alford/no contest plea.
Rando law firm Google result:
In Minnesota, an Alford plea is designed to allow somebody charged with a crime to plead guilty to the charge but at the same time allows that person to actually deny that they committed the crime. At the same time, the Defendant must also acknowledge that they recognize that the Government likely has sufficient evidence to get a conviction based upon that evidence if the case went to trial. However, it is important to remember that it is still a conviction. This is different than a Norgaard plea, which we have written about previously, in which a Defendant pleads guilty does not claim innocence but simply can’t remember what happened because they were drunk, high, or had some trauma or amnesia so that can’t remember the events.
I think Nick might be better off with the other kind of plea mentioned in this snippet.

Also, a hilariously ridiculous hit I got that is either from a profoundly retarded individual or an AI:
Does the Constitution require judges to refuse to accept Alford pleas?


The Constitution never allows a judge to accept an Alford plea. The defense of insanity is successful in a majority of cases where the defendant uses such a defense. The rules of evidence always apply.
Come to think of it, even the law firm article reads like it was written by an AI and perhaps was, but it's right despite its shoddy language.

I'll note that the article linked in the snippet ALSO reads like it was written by a retard but is otherwise at least broadly accurate.
 
Last edited:
Rando law firm Google result:

I think Nick might be better off with the other kind of plea mentioned in this snippet.

Also, a hilariously ridiculous hit I got that is either from a profoundly retarded individual or an AI:

Come to think of it, even the law firm article reads like it was written by an AI and perhaps was, but it's right despite its shoddy language.

I'll note that the article linked in the snippet ALSO reads like it was written by a retard but is otherwise at least broadly accurate.
How are these nutty pleas even possible? To me, you either did what you are charged with, or you didn’t. If you did, you either plead guilty and beg for mercy or plead no contest and hope for the best. This “I’m pleading guilty but I’m really innocent guys” is complete bullshit.
 
Child protection law is often nonsensical and leads to weird results. "There are a lot of substances in your house that are perfectly fine to have that are dangerous to children, like... bleach."

I never cease to be amazed by how retarded Rekieta reveals himself to be whenever he opens his mouth. CPS doesn't get invoked because cocaine is an inherently dangerous substance -- like bleach. As drugs go, it's a relatively low risk thing. Very hard to overdose, etc.

CPS gets invoked because a high incidence of people with issues around cocaine use turn out to be irresponsible parents who neglect and abuse their children. Like the Rekietas. Does he think his audience is retarded and doesn't know this? Does he just not care as long as he can spout some bullshit that appears to be a simulacrum of coherent thought? Or have the drugs just turned him into a total fucking retard?
 
How are these nutty pleas even possible? To me, you either did what you are charged with, or you didn’t. If you did, you either plead guilty and beg for mercy or plead no contest and hope for the best. This “I’m pleading guilty but I’m really innocent guys” is complete bullshit.

Its a compromise plea in situations where neither side will have a clear advantage at trial, but both sides have something to gain by making a deal. The prosecution gets a win and the defense gets to plead guilty without having to admit guilt in the plea. I believe that the plea allows the defendant to avoid certain outside of court consequences of an admission of guilt and allows the defendant to retain a presumption of innocence in any subsequent legal proceedings.

Its an interesting legal trivia footnote. But its something that almost never happens.
 
CPS gets invoked because a high incidence of people with issues around cocaine use turn out to be irresponsible parents who neglect and abuse their children. Like the Rekietas. Does he think his audience is retarded and doesn't know this?
He knows most of his core audience left are retarded bootlickers and likely many abusers amongst their numbers. Most of his views though, as the Chrissie stream showed, are actually just haters.
 
Its an interesting legal trivia footnote. But its something that almost never happens.
But Nick's case is just so WEIRD and you don't even know the full story yet. Really he's protecting all of us by fighting the government. Most people would just roll over and take it, but not the Balldo!
 
Its a compromise plea in situations where neither side will have a clear advantage at trial, but both sides have something to gain by making a deal. The prosecution gets a win and the defense gets to plead guilty without having to admit guilt in the plea. I believe that the plea allows the defendant to avoid certain outside of court consequences of an admission of guilt and allows the defendant to retain a presumption of innocence in any subsequent legal proceedings.

Its an interesting legal trivia footnote. But its something that almost never happens.
A very interesting case of it happening can be seen on the excellent but disturbing documentary "West of Memphis".
Basically some new evidence came to light after years of the innocents already being in prison, so instead of setting up a new trial, which would expose major corruption and bias of the people involved in the previous one, including the judge, the prosecution just offered that deal, and it was accepted. It's sad as fuck and no one suffered the consequences for it, but at least the kids got their names clean in the end.
 
Nick says that @Null is being lied to about the bodycam footage. Let's see how this ages:
He's flat out lying. Lying to you face.
Not only could Rekieta and/or his co-defendants request the release of the body footage, the Rekietas have already received the footage in discovery.

recordings.png

To my knowledge, no protective order has been issued for this footage and therefore they could release as much or as little of it as they want. They don't even have to release the footage with people in it - if the home wasn't filthy, they could release the officers walking through the pristine home. I don't think they will, though.

CPS gets invoked because a high incidence of people with issues around cocaine use turn out to be irresponsible parents who neglect and abuse their children. Like the Rekietas. Does he think his audience is retarded and doesn't know this? Does he just not care as long as he can spout some bullshit that appears to be a simulacrum of coherent thought?
Yes, they don't know, and yes.
 
A very interesting case of it happening can be seen on the excellent but disturbing documentary "West of Memphis".
Basically some new evidence came to light after years of the innocents already being in prison, so instead of setting up a new trial, which would expose major corruption and bias of the people involved in the previous one, including the judge, the prosecution just offered that deal, and it was accepted. It's sad as fuck and no one suffered the consequences for it, but at least the kids got their names clean in the end.
Also the 3 part Paradise Lost
 
For a so-called lawyer, he sure seems to lack all the brains of one. Every single thing he says and does, are quite the opposite of what a real lawyer would do.
That's only slightly not true. Everything he does is quite the opposite of what a good lawyer would advise their CLIENT to do.

He does what a retard would do.

Lawyers are notorious for doing exactly what a lawyer would tell you not to do. They think they're smarter than the non-lawyers and can get away with shit like talking to cops, talking shit to cops, acting like an utter idiot in court, etc.
 
He's so fucking cooked holy shit!
His retard lawyer and his retard lawyer's retard client are going for the longest of longest shots at trial, disputing science and legal issues that the court has already resolved countless times in countless cases (not in Nick's favour), instead of just taking a plea deal and avoiding jail time. Their crazy Lolbert theories are going to be laughed out of court, going with the Barnes strategy of invoking the constitution barely puts Nick above the level of a Sovereign Citizen.
 
Back