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.

[zyclonPD]

Cross-posting from Imholte thread the following clip by @elb: "Keanu: Kayla Rekieta Files Revenge Porn Charges Against Aaron Imholte"

It doesn't appear to be in this clip but Keanu not just specified that April contacted both her and Geno digging for more info on the matter and confirming that they intended to file a report, but ASKED THEM IF AARON HAD SENT THEM NUDES OF NICK!

Why would he have those?????



It's at 2:42:00 of her stream. I will clip it out myself later

I don't get it. Are the nudes available freely to anybody or were they just shared to Keanu to prove Aaron's claims? How will sharing said nudes in private to one person stand in court if you are sharing your own bottle in ass pics to anybody who had $5 and thought giving said $5 to Nick Rekieta was a good idea? I'm just confused how you are going to make a convincing court case out of this and what money is nick using to punish something so extraneous to his current issues?

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

My position on this is it doesn't really matter which one suggested the swinging. The minute they both agreed to it (and it's obvious now they're both okay with it) they were doomed. They're both fucked in the head. If it were just one of them we'd just be talking about garden variety adultery.

i doubt it was all Kayla's idea. She strikes me as a moron follower who has done hardly any thinking for herself her entire life. even if she "suggested it" i guarantee nick planted the idea in her head.

I think this all boils to the attempt to connect the unanswered questions of 'What was his "worst day"' and 'who started the swinging?' The evidence we have does not seem to point in one direction or the other, but we still try to find a place for it.

In terms of culpability, we can agree blame, is shared, but in terms of historical fact, we are at a loss.

wasn't there a clip a while ago of nick basically saying "i don't care what people think anymore and as soon as i get lady rackets on board i'm gonna do what i want"? it was something real red flag wavy like that. I remember @Null saying on MATI how it sounded like he was trying to convince her to do something she wasn't inclined to do.

just from what we know of these retards i can see nick (being the degenerate sex addict coomer that he is) starting to pressure Kayla into pushing the boundaries of their sex life and doing drugs till eventually she (being the retarded coke head that she is) gives in completely becomes a degenerate herself.

she then suggest swinging partly to keep him happy, partly because his degeneracy has rubbed off on her, and partly to get away from him a little (because i believe Aaron when he says she hates him.)

There was a rant where he said he didn't care about anyone's opinion except his wife (and maybe his father). I cannot recall when it occurred, but substitute any of his childish tantrums, and you will get the sense of it.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Cross-post from Imholte thread:

This is the clip of Keanu saying that April asked her whether Aaron had sent revenge porn of Nick Rekieta and that April relayed that they intended to file a report.

 

[AnOminous]

He's often paired that with his other lie-tell "I WISH I was a swinger" and then babbling about the experience of it and how it's very complicated.

It's Nick's dumb liar way of admitting to something. His duper's delight shines through. "I WISH I was a swinger," he says, while secretly sniggering "I actually AM a swinger, you dumb rubes, but I WISH I was one, too."

 

[Captain Manning]

He's only a slightly more practicing lawyer than Rekieta so I would take his legal opinions with only a mildly smaller boulder of salt than Rekieta's.

I think he does practice,but he practices shipping and transactional law, not something exactly on point here.

What we could really use here is Sean doing a stream on the criminal case. I know he sat in on Andrew's power point presentation, but he should do his own. Just him and his own genuine expertise.

Criminal law is 100% in Sean's wheelhouse.

I could totally understand if he doesn't want to though. This whole thing is beyond slimy now. Some days I feel sick to my stomach reading this thread. Usually they are the days we get "interesting matters of public record."

ASKED THEM IF AARON HAD SENT THEM NUDES OF NICK!

Why would he have those?????

Oh... God... please, no. We're gonna end up with pics of Nick's Balldo encased dick, aren't we?

On the list on the shit I could go my entire life without ever seeing, that would be high up on the list.

Even if we never see them, I totally believe they exist. For both of them. I mean, for Kayla, they would HAVE to if they think they have a shot at criminal charges. Right?

Somewhere, Claire is cackling. He gave her so much shit for the private pictures she and her husband took that were hacked and leaked.

Nick is so very much "rules for thee." Once again, as the eternal lying hypocrite he is, he should eat shit.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

I thought I coined it, but I recall Nick tanfenting into something Trump-esque about being 'monogamous AF' for a few minutes.

I think you coined it yes, but Nick adopted it in his own terms for some reason. he used to say monogamous as fuck but I've heard him say the aggressively monogamous after it was brought up here.
Which means we can still have hope for anime sucks, cope and seethe.

This is why Nick got the 'I WILL BE US' tattoo. He always talks about how WE are monogamous, but the tattoo shows us that 'he' is 'we'. Since Nick was cucked, Kayla is STILL monogamous becuase HE was!

Jokes, obviously, buy Nick would honestly try this kind of retard logic.

I have a third theory. This is some real retard logic but if Nick was high it makes sense. Remember how Nick was talking about edibles and MDMA?
What if:
1) Nick was so high and in altered mental status (therefore legally incapable of consent) that he wasn't able to technically consent to a swinger episode, therefore he was "monogamous as fuck".
2) What if he was so high he thought it was a fever dream like inception lmao.

They were trying to save their careers in what amounted to a metaphorical burning building and Aaron was dancing around inside the building enjoying himself. Aaron had previously always been a good boy around the important people around Anthony but the collapse of Compound meant he could unleash in inner asshole on everyone.

To cut Aaron some slack (so he may hang himself more), us farmers dance around building laughing without impeding anything instead of inside/outside of it.
This doesn't mean Aaron shouldn't jump infront of a truck to make the world a better place.

I don't get it. Are the nudes available freely to anybody or were they just shared to Keanu to prove Aaron's claims? How will sharing said nudes in private to one person stand in court if you are sharing your own bottle in ass pics to anybody who had $5 and thought giving said $5 to Nick Rekieta was a good idea? I'm just confused how you are going to make a convincing court case out of this and what money is nick using to punish something so extraneous to his current issues?

1) No nudes were posted by kayla (they were lewd, iirc she had lingerie on) to the locals by Rekieta's wife. Aaron implied (like he does a lot) that he had other nudes of Kayla
2)The law as written makes it illegal to share pornography of anyone without their consent period. It's specifically not a defense if the victim consented the defendant taking and possessing the photo, but not to sharing the photo with others.

I personally think this is just more busy-bodying by the state, there's about a billion things more important to deal with but they choose this because there's not much political blowback. I'm sure some folks will disagree but don't consent to take photo of shit that can be used against you (legally or not) ever.
Statue link here:

617.261 NONCONSENSUAL DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGES.​

Subdivision 1.Crime.​

It is a crime to intentionally disseminate an image of another person who is depicted in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part, when:
(1) the person is identifiable:
(i) from the image itself, by the person depicted in the image or by another person; or
(ii) from personal information displayed in connection with the image;
(2) the actor knows or reasonably should know that the person depicted in the image does not consent to the dissemination; and
(3) the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which the actor knew or reasonably should have known the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Subd. 2.Penalties.​

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), whoever violates subdivision 1 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) Whoever violates subdivision 1 may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of $5,000, or both, if one of the following factors is present:
(1) the person depicted in the image suffers financial loss due to the dissemination of the image;
(2) the actor disseminates the image with intent to profit from the dissemination;
(3) the actor maintains an Internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application for the purpose of disseminating the image;
(4) the actor posts the image on a website;
(5) the actor disseminates the image with intent to harass the person depicted in the image;
(6) the actor obtained the image by committing a violation of section 609.52, 609.746, 609.89, or 609.891; or
(7) the actor has previously been convicted under this chapter.

Subd. 3.No defense.​

It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person consented to the capture or possession of the image.

 

[Angry Crustacean]

I thought I coined it, but I recall Nick tanfenting into something Trump-esque about being 'monogamous AF' for a few minutes.

You may have coined it in response to this:

This video aged quite poorly, much like Nick himself.

 

[Strix454]

Cross-posting from Imholte thread the following clip by @elb: "Keanu: Kayla Rekieta Files Revenge Porn Charges Against Aaron Imholte"

Yeah. Real crackhead power move on Nick's part. Create a new legal case which is going to air all your swinger dirty laundry in a (new) court of law. Because if this actually makes it to a court, everything is going to come out. There is going to be testimony and transcripts and extraordinary detail about your sex life all out there in the public for people to laugh at.

So I guess I say thank you Nick for a whole new set of opportunities to laugh at you.

 

[Harm]

I don't get it. Are the nudes available freely to anybody or were they just shared to Keanu to prove Aaron's claims? How will sharing said nudes in private to one person stand in court if you are sharing your own bottle in ass pics to anybody who had $5 and thought giving said $5 to Nick Rekieta was a good idea? I'm just confused how you are going to make a convincing court case out of this and what money is nick using to punish something so extraneous to his current issues?

I don't believe voluntarily sharing some lewd or nude photos of yourself in the past waives your right to privacy for any and all future or past nude or lewd photos you may take.

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

If Nick goes out of his way to pursue the revenge porn angle against Aaron, doesn't that just further confirm Nick's and Kayla's non-monogamous status as degenerate swingers?

This is another arrow in the quiver of the incel prudes to call Nick a boomer-coomer cuck.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

If Nick goes out of his way to pursue the revenge porn angle against Aaron, doesn't that just further confirm Nick's and Kayla's non-monogamous status as degenerate swingers?

This is another arrow in the quiver of the incel prudes to call Nick a boomer-coomer cuck.

He takes the longer term L to pursue the shorter term W.
As such, not yet a Ralphamale but close. More like DSP.

 

[Angry Crustacean]

This is another arrow in the quiver of the incel prudes to call Nick a boomer-coomer cuck.

Nick is such a pathetic sophist I expect him to claim his whiskey dick disqualifies him from being called a coomer.

 

[AnOminous]

Did she? I heard Joe say that they can bathe on their own that she will understand that after she has her baby, and she's all like "oooooooh." She didn't seem to push back that hard.

Pure retard logic. Not to belabor it too much again, but the question isn't CAN they, but DO they. If they don't, whose fault is it? Answer: the parents, whose job it is to make sure they do things like that.

Personally, I don't belive that the mere suggestion of ' I want to swing' is enough to cause the real sort of distress that Nick seemed to show during Depp.

It would be to a normal man (or woman for that matter) who knows that is basically saying the marriage is over. The next step would be hiring a divorce lawyer.

 

[Angry Shoes]

If this shit somehow actually goes to trial should we rent a bus and make a nationwide road trip out of it picking up kiwis along the way to the final destination so we can witness this shit show first hand?

The Million Tard March

 

[Strix454]

2)The law as written makes it illegal to share pornography of anyone without their consent period. It's specifically not a defense if the victim consented the defendant taking and possessing the photo, but not to sharing the photo with others.

Not "pornography" but an even more vague term "private sexual images" which covers far more than pornography. The actual language of the law covering this case is "whose intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part".

There were reasons this law was struck down by the courts at one point before being revived. Its incredible broad and incredible vague.

I don't believe voluntarily sharing some lewd or nude photos of yourself in the past waives your right to privacy for any and all future or past nude or lewd photos you may take.

Yes and no. Its a question in the law of what "a reasonable expectation of privacy" is. A person who regularly engages in different forms of photography which are publically available on the internet may not have an expectation of privacy.

 

[Low IQ Doctor]

If Nick goes out of his way to pursue the revenge porn angle against Aaron, doesn't that just further confirm Nick's and Kayla's non-monogamous status as degenerate swingers?

This is another arrow in the quiver of the incel prudes to call Nick a boomer-coomer cuck.

I don't think Nick really intends for any criminal charges to go through against Aaron for sharing porn of Kayla. He might use it to try and get a harassment prevention order or restraining order that would effectively stop Aaron from mentioning her (and possibly Nick) in any future streams. It would also further discredit Aaron if he were to be used as a witness (I still don't think he would even be a useful witness) since Nick could now point to Aaron harassing his first ex-wife, coke wife, and our wife.

 

[Captain Manning]

If Nick goes out of his way to pursue the revenge porn angle against Aaron, doesn't that just further confirm Nick's and Kayla's non-monogamous status as degenerate swingers?

YES! You're goddamned right it does!

How the FUCK would he have those pictures otherwise? And to ask if he's got pics of Nick too? What a STRANGE question to ask.

But perhaps he thinks the Aaron is a bigger threat than maintaining a story that only the biggest mouth drooling idiots would believe at this point. Aaron is expected to testify against Nick, after all. So trying to get one over on Aaron would make sense from that standpoint.

Hell, he might even believe he can convince people he's still monogamous AND do this. He really thinks his manipulative powers are without limit.

This is another arrow in the quiver of the incel prudes to call Nick a boomer-coomer cuck.

As if anybody needed another arrow.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Not "pornography" but an even more vague term "private sexual images" which covers far more than pornography. The actual language of the law covering this case is "whose intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part".

There were reasons this law was struck down by the courts at one point before being revived. Its incredible broad and incredible vague.



Yes and no. Its a question in the law of what "a reasonable expectation of privacy" is. A person who regularly engages in different forms of photography which are publically available on the internet may not have an expectation of privacy.

I'm not a fan of the law just like I'm not a fan of the Texas online harassment law, or the Anti-anti-semitisim bill. Or the law banning threats against politicians since that's an age old American tradition.
But, any argument made surely will be along the lines of "it was not intended for public consumption". Think for example, if insert onlywhores model here had her private sex photos leaked (but she was also a porn actor), she could go after it in the same vein of attack.

The Million Tard March

Nick getting six million STDs would be easier. Work makes you free after all.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

More likely than not, (if Nick's distress is seen as genuine ) I tend to lean toward, 'We have been distant, and I stepped out. We should do it together' from Kayla. His ego would have been crushed, but his narcissistic degenerate fantasies were opened to him, so he got over it quickly.

Early on I would have disagreed with this due to thinking that Nick really had changed a lot. He has changed, but given the evidence, the change was much smaller than any of us thought after re-examining his older content. but I digress.
I now think this makes the most sense. The way he reacted would fit with how he was viewed at just the suggestion, but clearly how he was viewed was not in line with who he was and portrayed himself to be. This leads to a need to ask why the reaction then, and this is the best explanation fitting with Nick and even what we know of Kayla's personalities.

I have a question for anyone who was watching at the time I'm going to mention. I don't know if the content even exists anymore but what was the beef between Q and Drex the groomer? The stream had been deleted and people mentioned it had something to do with Kayla, but the thread was in defend the Rekietas mode at the time, myself included. So if anyone actually watched it, that could possibly shed some light on the situation.

 

[zyclonPD]

I don't believe voluntarily sharing some lewd or nude photos of yourself in the past waives your right to privacy for any and all future or past nude or lewd photos you may take.

I think it goes to show a pattern of behavior that sharing nudes is not something you find offensive or unacceptable, its just a matter of who is sharing them now that you wish to punish. Not to mention Kayla's own words around that post that she's proud of her body and sees no problem with sharing that. It just comes off as blatant hypocrisy you can use to punish something you would have never otherwise. I would see a difference if you had never shared anything like that before and that happened to you vs. This scenario.

) No nudes were posted by kayla (they were lewd, iirc she had lingerie on) to the locals by Rekieta's wife. Aaron implied (like he does a lot) that he had other nudes of Kayla
2)The law as written makes it illegal to share pornography of anyone without their consent period. It's specifically not a defense if the victim consented the defendant taking and possessing the photo, but not to sharing the photo with others.

The way its written it is open ended enough to be used as such. There's also the nick and Kayla hedonism picture naked on the sign. That's more comparable. Is nick going to sue null next because the pictures were posted here too or is this just because he's mad at Aaron and he hopes he can't hire a competent defense attorney?