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.

[Cousin Eddie]

If he was to divorce Kayla right now and marry April, everything that happened before said marriage would still be fair game,

No, that is incorrect. Again,

1) A current spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a current spouse about anything, whenever it happened. There, the privilege lies with the witness. The rationale for this rule is preserving marital harmony.

2) A second spousal privilege allows a defendant to prevent any spouse-witness, past or present, from testifying regarding any statements made during a marriage. There, the privilege lies with the defendant, and it applies to statements, not actions, nor "events." The rationale for this rule is mental health generally, and the notion that people should be able to talk to their spouses about anything.

You said "you can't marry someone to prevent them from testifying against you for things that happened before said marriage," and yes, you are correct there. Nick marring April does not give Nick the ability to stop April from testifying against him. What it does is gives April the option of declining to testify against Nick. That is, once married, April cannot be compelled to testify.

I have no idea why you keep qualifying your statements with "probably." This is a bright-line objective standard. There is no ambiguity.

 

[repentance]

Idk if it was mentioned earlier but apparently Aaron got a call from the police after ethan doxxed him. Sounds like the police believe Nick used ralph as a intimidation tactic

If it was reported to them, it's something they have to investigate. It may or may not go somewhere. Aaron may well tell them he doesn't feel the least bit intimidated by Ralph.

 

[Niggernerd]

If it was reported to them, it's something they have to investigate. It may or may not go somewhere. Aaron may well tell them he doesn't feel the least bit intimidated by Ralph.

He should say he felt intimidated and worried about the safety of his children so they take it seriously just to piss nick off

 

[Windy Moors]

Original post

The caliber of his remaining audience is dire. I wonder if it annoys him or does he enjoy lying to actual retards?

 

[Light blue notebook]

Someone calling themselves Rekietas bulldog on stream, and then interacting and doxing Aaron, when they are involved heavily in Rekietas trial, and said bulldog are in the vicinity of Aaron?

Why is anyone's guess, must be nothing.

 

[BaddestSeagull]

Gay for Josh

 

[Oxyjen]

What it does is gives April the option of declining to testify against Nick. That is, once married, April cannot be compelled to testify.

Forgive my extreme law ignorance, I know this is basic, but what exactly does “compelled” mean in this context, and why can’t she be compelled to testify against Nick right now?

 

[Fapcop]

I humbly propose that Nick and Ralph be treated as a comedy duo ala Laurel and Hardy or Abbott and Costello for Lolcow of the Year purposes due to intersecting storylines. They are a classic example of the trope, a veritable odd couple with one being tall, thin, effeminate, wealthy (perhaps no longer), and 'educated', with the other being short, fat, boorish, dirt poor, and possessing a 7th grade education. Despite their differences, they are united in spirit as narcissistic terminally online drug-addled fuckups who turn everything they touch into garbage, a true living nightmare for themselves.

It just doesn't feel right to separate their intertwined retardation making each others' horrible situations considerably worse with no apparent benefit for their association in the first place. The greatest ending possible to this comedy classic would be Ralph and Nick bickering with exaggerated slapstick fighting in striped Minnesota prison clothes as the screen swipes to black.

I think those two would make a pretty sweet sitcom. Nick and Ralph: Two podcasters constantly trying to sneakily backstab each other, while getting into hilarious (often drug fueled) hijinks.

Episode 1: The comeback.
Nick is planning his big comeback special, that Ralph decides to sabotage when he finds out he’s not invited.

Episode 2: You’re served!
Ralph is hunted by an extremely determined process server. Nick has his kids over for the weekly visitation. What could go wrong?

Episode 3: Hidden Camera
Ralph decides to boost attendance on his show, by filming Nick without his knowledge. Nick finally finds out who has been swiping his coke.

Episode 4: The visit
Nick’s trustfund lawyer comes by for his yearly visit. It’s important that everything goes right if Nick wants his check. Little does he know Ralph is going through benzo withdrawals.

Episode 5: The double dip
When Nick finds out he can double his trustfund check by getting married, he talks Ralph into gay marriage. Nick’s parents are in town for a swinger convention.

 

[GoudaChris]

Someone calling themselves Rekietas bulldog on stream, and then interacting and doxing Aaron, when they are involved heavily in Rekietas trial, and said bulldog are in the vicinity of Aaron?

Why is anyone's guess, must be nothing.

Much like Ricky I’m a non practicing lawyer, but one has to wonder if there will be some sort investigation into this since it’s a federal case and all

 

[BaddestSeagull]

Forgive my extreme law ignorance, I know this is basic, but what exactly does “compelled” mean in this context, and why can’t she be compelled to testify against Nick right now?

She has the right to not self incriminate since she now has charges and testifying against Nick would potentially force her to admit to her own shit.

 

[TherapyMan]

Forgive my extreme law ignorance, I know this is basic, but what exactly does “compelled” mean in this context, and why can’t she be compelled to testify against Nick right now?

People can be compelled to testify if they are subject to a valid subpoena. To testify means to answer questions under oath. April can resist being compelled to testify because her testimony would be self-incriminating and you cannot be forced to give self-incriminating testimony under the Fifth Amendment.

A clever prosecutor who was out to get Nick specifically might offer April immunity to roll on the Rekietas and prevent April from pleading the Fifth (if you're immune from prosecution, you can't self-incriminate). But it's unclear what exactly the prosecuting attorney's prerogative here is.

 

[August Levasseur]

Forgive my extreme law ignorance, I know this is basic, but what exactly does “compelled” mean in this context, and why can’t she be compelled to testify against Nick right now?

The Bible says that when a man and a woman are joined in marriage, they become one flesh. Legally, this means that testifying against your spouse falls under the same category as testifying against yourself, and thus she has the right not to under the 5th amendment.

 

[Melty Butter]

Based on recent discussions ITT, I have been reflecting on the potential leverage and influence Kayla might possess wrt legal matters, social media, and personal disputes.

Before I outline these points, I want to clarify that my intention is not to endorse or excuse Kayla. She is an objective failure on many fronts. Nick, however, is a master gaslighter, so much so that he gaslights his audience about the meaning of gaslighting.

Just as I rooted for Vic, Kyle, and Depp, I hope Kayla understands her leverage.

The following points are not mutually exclusive and may overlap:

1. Testifying Against Nick: Kayla might have detailed knowledge about the drug transactions that could be significant in legal proceedings.
2. Allegations of Abuse: She could either reveal genuine or fabricated stories of abuse or assault. For instance, Aaron has already mentioned an incident where he had to intervene due to concerns for Kayla’s safety. It’s unclear if Aaron has additional information.
3. BDSM and Abusive Kinks: If Kayla has been coerced into enduring abusive or extreme sexual practices that Nick has publicly discussed, she could disclose this information.
4. Public Exposure: Kayla could use social media to further damage Nick’s reputation.
5. Financial Claims: She is entitled to half of the value of the second home (around $200K) since it was not part of the trust. Additionally, she could claim a share of the trust funds that were possibly funneled through a joint account. This is often contested in high-profile divorces. Nick’s known lack of diligence in administrative matters could play in her favor.
6. Child Support: If she can demonstrate that Nick is an unfit parent, she might secure child support funds directly for the children. Forensic accounting could readily reveal expenses that have been mismanaged or misreported.
7. Leverage from Family and Community: Kayla’s family and religious community might be mobilized against Nick and his parents, as there are indications that they might support her.

Also, Kayla is a dysfunctional mess of a human. Thus far, I see no indications that she will discover any personal agency.

I am simply making a case. I hope she has good representation.

 

[Sawamura Simp]

I humbly propose that Nick and Ralph be treated as a comedy duo ala Laurel and Hardy or Abbott and Costello for Lolcow of the Year purposes due to intersecting storylines.

Balldot and Hogstello then.

 

[Obnoxious Asshole]

I think those two would make a pretty sweet sitcom. Nick and Ralph

Kind of like Bosom Buddies, but they're both drug soaked degenerates. Give Amazon a call, they might sign a pilot.

 

[Gorbus]

I love the Rackets/Ralph Relationship (RRR) because they both think they're getting one over on the other, it's completely cynical, but they're actually both just being damaged by association with the other.

 

[Forsaken Wanderer]

So there is no more gossip allowed on the gossip forum? We have to speak in legalese now? And we can't mention the word k.1.d. or Rackets might somehow win his case by calling us all pedos, which certainly doesn't play right into his hands because he doesn't want people talking about his k.1.d.s being abused and neglected, no way a narc who thinks he is clever would try that on.

We must be careful discussing the disgusting hobgoblin of a man that refuses to feed his k.1.d.s because he would rather fuck his live-in escort and snort coke up his elongated nose while pole dancing at the Hedonism expo, a man who lusts after women far younger than himself and his only friends are Vito , a guy that threatens to fuck your children, Dick & Riley, two fans of Cuties and pimps of a retarded women that they have sexually exploited from her teenage years, Ethan Ralph a man that fantasizes about his childhood sweethearts to this day and lover of AF which is known to be run by a cabal of brown pedophiles, and his now ex friend the black bull who groomed a teenage girl into doing BDSM with him.

Oh sorry we can't be candid and relaxed on this internet forum, so let me change that, after all I wouldn't want Nick reading this and thinking I'm in the wrong. Sorry Nick, I mean ALLEGEDLY you are abusing your k.1.d.s, ALLEGEDLY you are snorting coke, ALLEGEDLY you have a live-in escort with a stinky pussy, ALLEGEDLY all of your friends are gross c.h.1.l.d diddlers. There we go, done, now Nick can't use this post to win his case.

Oh what's this? I searched the forum for a specific word and I found this! *gasp* -



Oh my gawd! It's that k word! Now Nick, Vito, Dick and Ralph can say that the forum is a terrible place and win the case! That fucking idiot Dolphin Lundgren should of known better to gossip on a gossip forum, after all we aren't a bunch of autists that just want a place to talk, we are all practicing lawyers with degrees and we know exactly how the law works and what we can and can't say, and because a narcissist hates us (and is going to use his pedo fans to smear us anyway) that should cause us all to censor ourselves and we should allow the neglect to be sweeped under the rug and never talked about, just like Nick wants.

 

[datura_binge]

No, that is incorrect. Again,

1) A current spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a current spouse about anything, whenever it happened. There, the privilege lies with the witness. The rationale for this rule is preserving marital harmony.

2) A second spousal privilege allows a defendant to prevent any spouse-witness, past or present, from testifying regarding any statements made during a marriage. There, the privilege lies with the defendant, and it applies to statements, not actions, nor "events." The rationale for this rule is mental health generally, and the notion that people should be able to talk to their spouses about anything.

You said "you can't marry someone to prevent them from testifying against you for things that happened before said marriage," and yes, you are correct there. Nick marring April does not give Nick the ability to stop April from testifying against him. What it does is gives April the option of declining to testify against Nick. That is, once married, April cannot be compelled to testify.

I have no idea why you keep qualifying your statements with "probably." This is a bright-line objective standard. There is no ambiguity.

I get what you are saying here but I think the reality is that it would never matter anyway because whoever signs off in these divorce/marriage papers is almost certainly going to notice that all this is going on with these people. There are very few things that are done in courts at all where one of the questions isn't "are you in the middle of some legal stuff right now?"

 

[AnOminous]

The caliber of his remaining audience is dire. I wonder if it annoys him or does he enjoy lying to actual retards?

He loves duping people and who's left who believes anything this skelly says?

 

[Laquisha Guntermensch]

I think those two would make a pretty sweet sitcom.

Sorry to Ralph up the thread more than it already is, but your first season show synopsis is hilarious @Fapcop.
Please include Ralphalessons from Ronnie at the end of each episode delivered by PPP in the paper sack mask. For example:
NOW WHAT'D WE LEARN TODAY? MAYBE AYE-LAWGS SHOULD BELIEVE WHEN RACKETS SAYS IT'S LEGAL TO DESECRATE A GRAVE, 'CAUSE RALPH AIN'T IN JAIL, NOW IS HE? BUT WHAT DO I KNOW, I'M A FUCKIN' RETARD!