State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Rekieta, Kayla Rekieta, April Imholte

[Watching Rekieta]

On 23rd of July, April Imholte, was also charged. She was charged with Felony Marijuana possession with a maximum sentence of five years in prison, $10,000 fine or both. The facts are identical to Nick and his wife's case.

This first page description of April's charge is incorrect. She was charged with possessing a Schedule 1 drug. The titling of the statute is "Not Small Amount Marijuana" as the law does not apply to that amount of marijuana, not that she was charged with marijuana. The detailed description says it was cocaine.

 

[DiabeticSydePhil]

This first page description of April's charge is incorrect. She was charged with possessing a Schedule 1 drug. The titling of the statute is "Not Small Amount Marijuana" as the law does not apply to that amount of marijuana, not that she was charged with marijuana. The detailed description says it was cocaine.

View attachment 6319914

Something I've noticed is that the charges are 25 or more grams of cocaine. But, in the local Fox article that ran about Null requesting footage, it says 24 grams of cocaine.

With how Nick has been very smug about a gacha and the likelihood he or someone in his camp was behind the Fox article, is it possible he's gotten some kind of second weighing done and the coke came in under the 25g threshold? It's possible the article got that wrong but it seems like a weird detail to not match up.

 

[newuser131]

has anyone volunteered to be the court room artist to show the images of rekieta and his balldo during the hearing?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

This first page description of April's charge is incorrect. She was charged with possessing a Schedule 1 drug. The titling of the statute is "Not Small Amount Marijuana" as the law does not apply to that amount of marijuana, not that she was charged with marijuana. The detailed description says it was cocaine.

Fixed, thank you.

 

[Long-time Lurker]

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VOID WARRANT, SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, AND DISMISS CHARGES FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Edit: The tool I thought would convert the whole PDF to an image isn't working, so here is just the PDF.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Kayla's attorney for the CHIPS case has filed a certificate of representation in the criminal case for Kayla. She also filed a disclosure request.



Kayla is requesting a CONTINUANCE for the August 20 hearing at 2:45pm because her new attorney has a conflict at that time.....



Wait a second. The hearing is on Wednesday, wasn't it?



Kayla's attorney is citing the old hearing date which was cancelled when Nick and Kayla switched judges.

 

[Botchy Galoop]

Very crafty.
Waiting to retain representation for Kayla until the last minute so the omnibus can be continued.
Nick really doesn't want a Shortbus of Farmers descending on Willmar, does he?

 

[Pizdec]

So is he going to try and throw Kayla or Amber under the bus for possession? Null is this what you meant, in regards to the most slimey thing he could do?

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

So is he going to try and throw Kayla or Amber under the bus for possession? Null is this what you meant, in regards to the most slimey thing he could do?

Currently he’s trying to get the warrant thrown out due to them using a clip of the stream as evidence, April talking after being mirandized and requesting Nick be there when she talks, and Barnes-tier arguments.

 

[Sam Losco]

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VOID WARRANT, SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, AND DISMISS CHARGES FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Edit: The tool I thought would convert the whole PDF to an image isn't working, so here is just the PDF.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I'm sorry, but is Nick arguing that intentional waiver of Miranda rights by April makes her statements inadmissible? Minnesota Supreme Court disagrees.

Spoiler: bunch of quotes

"If police fully advise an accused of his or her Miranda rights and the accused indicates that he or she understands the rights but nevertheless gives an incriminating statement, the state is deemed to have met its burden of proving that the accused knowingly and intelligently waived his or her rights." State v. Jones, 566 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. 1997), "Scott was not given the Miranda warning until 15 minutes into the custodial interrogation. After he was properly given the Miranda warning, Scott confessed to committing the drive-by shootings. On appeal, the issues before this court are whether Scott knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, whether his subsequent confession is admissible, and whether the suppression will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial. We hold that unless we reverse, the suppression will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial. We also hold that Scott knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent and that his subsequent confession was voluntarily given and thus is admissible." State v. Scott, 584 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. 1998), "Earl claims that police violated his right to counsel by continuing his interrogation after he unequivocally asked to talk to a lawyer. The Minneapolis police took Earl into custody and read him his Miranda rights at around 6 p.m. on April 30, 2003. Earl responded, "I think I want to talk to a lawyer first." Earl argues that after he invoked his right to counsel, the police continued contact with him for the purpose of inducing him to revoke his request for counsel and waive his Miranda rights. The state does not dispute that Earl invoked his right to counsel, but argues that some time after Earl did so, he reinitiated contact with the police, revoked his invocation of his right to counsel, waived his Miranda rights and voluntarily gave a videotaped statement [...] The district court concluded that Earl voluntarily waived his right to counsel and ruled that his statement was admissible. [...] We conclude that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and we determine that Earl's waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary." State v. Earl, 702 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 2005)

And I don't see Nick alleging that the Police threatened or otherwise unlawfully coerced April.

 

[Sam Losco]

So, just skimming it, it seems like the strongest argument is that Ms Sweep, the day before the warrant, sent a letter to the deputy that what was described doesn't constitute abuse or neglect?
Does that even matter? Wasn't the warrant more for drugs than children issues?

 

[Long-time Lurker]

Currently he’s trying to get the warrant thrown out due to them using a clip of the stream as evidence, April talking after being mirandized and requesting Nick be there when she talks, and Barnes-tier arguments.

Also, you can't look at what Aaron said because he's Nick's bitter ex. I think that's it, yeah.

(I skipped the section whining about his guns b/c no one cares.)

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Does that even matter?

Abuse was one part of the warrant. I guess his attack is two pronged:

Attack the child abuse, and attack Imholte for the drug thing, and hope the warrant collapses in two. He doesn't seem to refute the facts (except the cope stream which was faked by Elisa according to him), mainly going for the "you didn't provide full context and thereby you lied" approach.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VOID WARRANT, SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, AND DISMISS CHARGES FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Edit: The tool I thought would convert the whole PDF to an image isn't working, so here is just the PDF.

So Nick is saying that the clipped video is not the original, so that invalidates the warrant. That sounds legally shaky geound to me, but IANAL...

He also says that Aaron is not reliable because Pomplum should have watched all these other videos and shows that Aaron made about Nick? Doesn't Pomplun have to only make a reasonable investigation? Citing specific streams that Pomplun did NOT watch only makes sense if they were one of few and short. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect him to review EVERYTHING Aaron had said about Nick.

With regards to April, it seems to me that she talked to the coppers and did not shut up. Why should Nick get benefit from that?

ETA: Missing final sentence

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

@waffle

On a scale of 1-10 how Joever is it for Kiwifags?

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

Was the pastor not also a "concerned citizen"?

All well and good trying to imply Aaron is purely malicious and has no reason to believe the children are in danger, but he wasn't the only one reporting as far as I can recall.

 

[Oh Darn]

Okay so wait a minute, how the fuck does this actually address the probable cause affidavit not supporting the search? The entire motion is sperging out about Aaron, but doesn't mention the mandatory reporter who received informtion from MULTIPLE PARTIES that there were concerns with substances in the home.

This whole filing smells like the ramblings of a wet-brained coked up retard, is White just being a sockpuppet for this moron, or is he braindamaged also?

 

[Spergichu]

Very crafty.
Waiting to retain representation for Kayla until the last minute so the omnibus can be continued.
Nick really doesn't want a Shortbus of Farmers descending on Willmar, does he?

Nick would never do such a thing. Not when his bestest friend in the whole wide world, Ethan Ralph of da Keelstreem baby, is in the middle of his own odyssey to Wilmar for the hearing.

 

[SargonF00t]

Very crafty.
Waiting to retain representation for Kayla until the last minute so the omnibus can be continued.
Nick really doesn't want a Shortbus of Farmers descending on Willmar, does he?

It would also mean that the Ralphamale came to Minnesota for nothing.