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
That One Kid just was unfortunate enough to wander into the smokehouse where Nick was dry-aging steaks in an atmosphere of 100% pure crack smoke.
The way Nick tried downplaying the harmfulness of cocaine really makes me think the theory that he doses himself with cocaine "medicinally" and did the same to "help" his daughter is true
 
The way Nick tried downplaying the harmfulness of cocaine really makes me think the theory that he doses himself with cocaine "medicinally" and did the same to "help" his daughter is true
He believes it reduces stress and supposedly mixes it into his liquor hence why he licks the bottle since he doesn't want to waste any coke.
 
Chrissie talks to pretty much anyone and interviews people she doesn't agree with but she generally doesn't blast them; the point of the interview is to get the interviewee to answer questions not debate about them.
From what I’ve seen, I agree with this. Looks like most of the criticism towards Mayr is based on personal dislike. I’ve watched her stuff maybe 3X, once long ago when da Gunt hollered at her, once when I tried watching one of her all female shows (& I couldn’t take the grating voices of half of her cohosts,) & yesterdays interview w/ Rackets. I’m not well versed in her work but it was clearly a basic interview where the goal is to get the guest to talk. She was unobtrusive, some might say to a fault.

Also, she didn’t host a spectacle which is what a certain contingent want all the time, & anything less is a disappointment to that type of audience. She didn’t press Nick at all, so I understand the criticism regarding that, but, it was obvious why she wasn’t pressing him. She was pretty much just letting him talk to get more information. Can’t think of many interviewers who would just let his blatant lies sit, though it was funny seeing her eyes bug out in her head as she sipped from a coffee mug that read, “mom.” Truly a contrast of someone who wants parenthood vs one who does not.

The thread is a little slow & there is some reaching about Mayr, especially by those who don’t like her. I’m more inclined to call it a very milquetoast interview, but it was clear that if pressed, Nick would not even be there. If you watch Chrissie’s reactions to some of Nick’s ridiculous answers, you can see her disagreement or disbelief. The thing is, that’s just what I saw, she was very neutral, so neutral that it could be interpreted as tacit approval from anyone with a bone to pick, or anyone who saw that in her reactions. Now, if she goes around championing him after his clear & obvious lies during her interview, then she would earn a spot on the BalldoWashers List. As of yet it’s premature imo. My guess is she will try to remain neutral due to past friendship & mutual friends. Other people ITT seem to know her style better than I do, so watch her become a cheerleader & make my post irrelevant. Either way, slow times make silly topics in most threads.
 
It's been a while but glad to see the shit storm has gotten worse. Can't say I'm not surprised.
Just finished the Chrissie/Rekieta interview. What a joke.
Then maybe she should have done her fucking homework? Seems like a good idea before any interview, really. This isn't some esoteric and obscure thing anymore.
She never does. She's Nick but in the female form when it comes to prepping for shows. Her GD show Simpcast is a bunch of pornstars who sit and scroll thru Twitter. Not much of a show. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's zero prep. I was hopeful for this interview, then remembered how fucking lazy she is.

EDIT:
I do like Chrissie, but if you're going to have an interview post with an over-the-top thumbnail and over-the-top title acting like you're going to get to the bottom of Rekieta's arrest, then fucking do it. Don't over sensationalize it, then go easy on him. There was hardly any pushback and she knows all of Nick's antics. Just another grifter at this point.

But my guess is that this comes down to her personal friendships with Keanu and April. What pressure does Chrissie feel to defend Nick because her friends are on his side and now the expectation is that she has to prove her loyalty to them by coming to Nick's defense?
Right now, there is a clip war happening between TV's Wil Herren VS. Keanu/Chrissie. I put a link to the crosspost I did on Aaron Imholte's thread if anyone cares. Also have a TLDR, but it's gotten nasty and Chrissie's a part of it.

My point in sharing is that oddly, Chrissie always seems to insert herself into everyone's drama just enough, but happens to then get out just in the knick of time, or plays Switzerland, rakes in views off of it, then tells clippers not to clip her.

Crosspost from Aaron Imholte on Wil Herren/Chrissie/Keanu Clip Wars
Wil Herren is trying to rise up as another Rekieta Coke Story clippers (sorry bruh, @elb Elissa Clips is our Queen) and he apparently was told by Chrissie Mayr he didn't have permission to clip her show. Then he went and asked Keanu if he could clip Chrissie's show? Then as this guy kept using more of Keanu's clips, she asked him to stop, to which he went apeshit.

Wil Herren weirdly enough is a news anchor in Lafayette, LA, and is seen on stream yelling and swearing at Keanu. Kind of odd for a news anchor if you ask me. Either way, thought I'd share incase anyone was interested.
 
I do like Chrissie, but if you're going to have an interview post with an over-the-top thumbnail and over-the-top title acting like you're going to get to the bottom of Rekieta's arrest, then fucking do it. Don't over sensationalize it, then go easy on him. There was hardly any pushback and she knows all of Nick's antics. Just another grifter at this point.
She gave him a softball interview as a reward because April texted Keanu and told her about what a horrible person Aaron is. Before April contacted Keanu, according to the Keanu/Chrissie clique Nick was a horrible person who was controlling April, a cult leader like figure who was probably limiting April's contact with the outside world and possibly even writing messages in her name. Now he is getting a softball interview.
 
the competing statements "intent to posses is part of the crime! they have to prove intent" and "the cops don't know ANYTHING about the drugs including who owns them or where they came from or even what they are" mixed with the statement "I kept the coke in a safe place" is INCREDIBLY retarded. you just admitted you intended to posses them because you just said you had a particular spot set aside for their posession, you also amditted that you knew about them and were in control of them and possessed them because you decided where they went and how they were stored.

like you know for certain that your streams are being watched by the cops, why the fuck would you talk about the drugs and attempt to lie about drug possesion so stupidly? really? youre gonna stream yourself saying "neener neener pig man! you cant prove that the cociane I kept in my secure location to keep it safe from others in my home was mine! or that I possesed it of my own will in my special coke spot specifically for keeping my coke! looks like I win again oinky!"
 
She gave him a softball interview as a reward because April texted Keanu and told her about what a horrible person Aaron is. Before April contacted Keanu, according to the Keanu/Chrissie clique Nick was a horrible person who was controlling April, a cult leader like figure who was probably limiting April's contact with the outside world and possibly even writing messages in her name. Now he is getting a softball interview.
Super late on this but it's crazy to me that April even went back to Nick. After all that shit went down. They're all very despicable
 
Lafayette has a tradition of wild media personalities. John Larroquette has talked about how insane he was when he did radio out of Lafayette.
It's explains so much because he sounds, looks, and acts like a total balldo.................... WITH the extra rings.

She gave him a softball interview as a reward because April texted Keanu and told her about what a horrible person Aaron is. Before April contacted Keanu, according to the Keanu/Chrissie clique Nick was a horrible person who was controlling April, a cult leader like figure who was probably limiting April's contact with the outside world and possibly even writing messages in her name. Now he is getting a softball interview.
This just goes to show all of these assholes are such trash. The way they flip and turn on each other faster than politicians change their minds only proves these people (in the voice of Ashton/Kino) ALL DESERVE TO SUFFAH BISH!!!

While it's fun for us all to watch and ALog, it really goes to show the amount of pieces of shit in this world.

the competing statements "intent to posses is part of the crime! they have to prove intent" and "the cops don't know ANYTHING about the drugs including who owns them or where they came from or even what they are" mixed with the statement "I kept the coke in a safe place" is INCREDIBLY retarded.
BUT I'M A LAWYER.......... AND MUH FREEDUMS AND MUH RIGHTS!

This guy every single day proves more and more how much of a shit lawyer he is. He has zero idea what he's talking about half the time which makes me wonder if how he even graduated from law school!
 
I do like how Nick’s go to when people doubt his narrative is condescension. Either he outright says you are retarded or implies it via a bad explanation of the law that isn’t right or “I wish it was ______”.

You get a little bit of impotent rage from the condescending tone as well. It’s no longer “I. HAVE. TO. WEAR. THE. BALLDO. I. DO. NOT. LIKE. WEARING. THE. BALLDO. IT. CRUSHES. MY. BALLS. BUT. I HAVE. TO.”
It’s him trying to laugh someone for believing he’s a fuck up based on the evidence. Rather than the reality he’s trying to craft.
 
"Anything you say can and will be used against you in court." - Excerpt from the Miranda Warning

If they think he says something they can use, they'll use it.
Miranda warning is specifically about in-custody statements.

But any freely given statement can come in if it's relevant, lawfully obtained/properly authenticated, and isn't hearsay (or fits in an exception). Evidence just needs to be relevant to a material fact at issue to be admissible, provided the probity is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, waste of time, or similar.

MN Rules of Evidence:

Rule 401.Definition of "Relevant Evidence"​

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Committee Comment - 1977
The threshold test for the admissibility of evidence is the test of relevancy. Essentially, it is a test of logic, and assessment of probative value. Evidence must have some probative value or it should not be admitted. The rule adopts a liberal as opposed to restrictive approach to the question of relevancy. If the offer has any tendency to make the existence of a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence it is relevant. A slight probative tendency is sufficient under Rule 401. Even where probative value is established and the evidence is relevant it still might be excluded under various other provisions in these rules, state and federal constitutions and other court rules. Rule 402.
The evidentiary offer must tend to prove or disprove a fact that is of consequence to the litigation. What is of consequence to the litigation depends upon the scope of the pleadings, the theory of recovery and the substantive law. The rule avoids reference to materiality, an overused term meaning different things in different situations. The fact to be established need not be an ultimate fact or a vital fact. It need only be a fact that is of some consequence to the disposition of the litigation.
The liberal approach to relevancy is consistent with Minnesota practice. In Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 98, 99, 132 N.W.2d 711, 719 (1965) the Court defined relevancy as a function of the effect the offered evidence might have upon the proof of a material fact in issue:
If the offered evidence permits an inference to be drawn that will justify a desired finding of fact, it is relevant. Reduced to simple terms, any evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.

Rule 402.Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible​

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the United States Constitution, the State Constitution, statute, by these rules, or by other rules applicable in the courts of this state. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. [Commentary not copied here]

Rule 403.Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time​

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. [Commentary not copied here.]
404 explains that character evidence, including evidence of other crimes not at issue, is only relevant for certain purposes.

There are obviously other rules/nuances, so the whole set of Rules is linked above.
 
He believes it reduces stress and supposedly mixes it into his liquor hence why he licks the bottle since he doesn't want to waste any coke.
It "reduces stress" so much he was a raging, seething cocaine cuck in every stream for months before he finally got busted for all the cocaine he had.
But any freely given statement can come in if it's relevant, lawfully obtained/properly authenticated, and isn't hearsay (or fits in an exception).
Almost every single thing this drug-addled moron has said since his arrest is either an admission against interest or a blatantly idiotic lie that can be used to impeach his other testimony because he's a lying liar who lies, even about things that are basically already in evidence in the case.

Even sub-Saharan IQ street crackheads know better than this "lawyer."
 
Last edited:
Back