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.

What would the outcome of the harassment restraining order be?

  • A WIN for the Toe against Patrick Melton.

    Votes: 63 18.1%
  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 92 26.4%
  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 54 15.5%
  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 135 38.8%

  • Total voters
    348
1723738599599.png
Welp, wrap it up guys. Someone shouted nigger during Nick's first appearance so we don't have the right privilege to transparency in this trial anymore.
 
He's basically hinging his entire argument off this fucking imbecile who I will crucify if I find out his username -- assuming he even has one or the person in this even sent this mail.

View attachment 6310594View attachment 6310595
Boy that’s awfully legally articulate for a random DC pedo.

Very nice of him to put his full address in the header.

I’m not saying it’s 100% fake but I’d be way more convinced if they had DC postmarked mail to corroborate and not a random email.
 
Last edited:
"...the public will have the right to attend, only they may not be able to attend from the comfort of their recliners and in their pajamas."

"...public access does not require every proceeding be rendered into ones and zeroes with unfettered abandon."

"Allowing the recording and broadcasting of these proceedings would be like punishing a child who raided the cookie jar by giving him the rest of the cookies."


What an absolute drama queen. Is this kind of flamboyant prose typical in court filings?
 
What do you have to hide, Nick?
You know, that is a good question. What are you hiding Nick? Surely if you're about to take a plea deal, we'll all find out anyway. It's public record, we'll figure it out one way or another. So what's the point of preventing us from filming your plea deal with the state? Unless.....

You didn't get a plea deal, did you Nick?
 
View attachment 6310608
Welp, wrap it up guys. Someone shouted nigger during Nick's first appearance so we don't have the right privilege to transparency in this trial anymore.
what kind of legal argument is this anyhow lmfao. "its like giving children cookies!" A+ filing there. Literally Patrick/Greer Tier filing. Is rackets coked up when he submits this shit to his lawyer to file?
 
As retarded as "a pedophile is jumping through the hoops to involve himself in court proceedings, just to record footage of children, which he could do for free anywhere else" is, this Jason character might have fucked it by involving himself. Now Nick has a valid excuse to use his children as a shield against being recorded in court.
 
Hooo boy....

1. OK, if his concern is that his children will be broadcast then cameras can be placed under the control of the court and a partition erected to ensure that a minor defendant on the witness stand is not visible outside the courtroom. It's not like that hasn't been done before.

2. OK, if his concern is about the person in question being a registered sex offender then someone else can be chosen.

TL;DR His objections are irrelevant and Nick Rekieta remains a coked up faggot with a broke dick.
 
Am I retarded or is the clause that he cites at the end specifically for when minors make an appearance in court? I've seen cases before where minors take the stands, and the cameras are either cut, or a transcript of the child's statements are overlayed on the screen.

This entire filing is ludicrously unprofessional, but the last paragraph is especially egregious. The public is not a single entity which is to be rewarded or punished based on certain individual's behaviors.
 
He's basically hinging his entire argument off this fucking imbecile who I will crucify if I find out his username -- assuming he even has one or the person in this even sent this mail.
We sure Rackets didn't just send this in the name of a pedophile he found on the register to try and justify his argument that releasing the bodycam footage will be feeding pedos?
 
Back