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.

[thebigdream]

His theory of the case is now "muh video compression"

If your argument comes down to muh video compression just voluntarily put yourself into cuffs and walk to the nearest police station, it's fucking over.

 

[Vibralldo]

His first screed was too long and had to be archived individually.
His theory of the case is now "muh video compression"

This just shows that Nick lied when he said the cop was lying (big shock)

Nick's saying that the cop lied about having seen the video, but the officer clearly believes (and is correct) that the archive is equivalent to the original upload.

Almost as if Nick decided that the cop lying would be the narrative he'd go with from the start and is now trying to retroactively fit the new info he's gotten to this narrative, but it doesn't quite fit.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Rekieta has been arguing about his case on Twitter for the last 3 hours

There are so many tweets I don't care enough to archive and screenshot individually, I only archived his main page and took screenshots from that archived page.

His first screed was too long and had to be archived individually.
His theory of the case is now "muh video compression"

View attachment 6340363
Archive

The rest:
View attachment 6340365
View attachment 6340349
View attachment 6340350
View attachment 6340347
View attachment 6340348
View attachment 6340345
View attachment 6340346
View attachment 6340342
View attachment 6340343
(Archive for above tweets)

So Nick's new theory of the case is that because the reuploaded video might be a little different then the whole warrant has to go because 'the officer lied'

Thats not a lie Nick, the video is likely still good as to probable cause, and because you said you have THE ORIGINAL you will have to turn it over.

 

[Obnoxious Asshole]

So Nick's new theory of the case is that because the reuploaded video might be a little different then the whole warrant has to go because 'the officer lied'

Thats not a lie Nick, the video is likely still good as to probable cause, and because you said you have THE ORIGINAL you will have to turn it over.

Crackets is turning his criminal trial into a cheap and tawdry version of My Cousin Vinny.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Crackets is turning his criminal trial into a cheap and tawdry version of My Cousin Vinny.

He wishes any of his lawyering was that good

 

[Watching Rekieta]

His theory of the case is now "muh video compression"

Wait until he realizes that he only made 1 recording. And the cop watched him, not the video.

 

[The Internet Dick]

I did a lot of accumulated time in county jails back in the day when I was drinking myself to death, and the top topic of jailhouse conversation after booze, drugs, women, sports, and cars was usually nitpicking over the fine points of whatever crime we were in for. For example, a thief awaiting trial would go on for hours explaining why the loot found in the trunk of his car could be magically reasonably doubted into nonevidence of a crime if no proof the thief put it there could be produced. And no, I wasn't above that kind of delusional self-bullshittery. I had personally convinced myself at one point that the cop who gave me the roadside sobriety test had intentionally made it harder for me, making it impossible to beat. Fucker set me up, singled me out. I don't deserve this. I don't belong here.

We all did it. Rekieta's doing it now. It's called grasping at straws, knowing deep-down you're well and truly fucked and there's nothing for it but to close your eyes and dream of England.

 

[morew44881]

So what's the worse case scenario for Nick?
He's still getting simp money from his simps.

 

[Bland Crumbs]

His theory of the case is now "muh video compression"

Hrm...

Crackets is turning his criminal trial into a cheap and tawdry version of My Cousin Vinny.

How many blurry pixels does that look like to you?
Five.
Eh...eh...don't forget this one and this one!
Seven.
So you could clearly identify cocaine on my nose through seven blurry pixels?

Spoiler: for reference

 

[anionfarflung]

One of the local news sites, willmarradio.com, is following the Rekieta story:

• Nick Rekieta in court Wednesday on drug charges (archive)
• Judge denies request for video coverage of internet star's legal proceedings (archive)

My sides! lololol !

 

[Seymour Duncan]

You want the prosecutor to bring up the full 4 hour cokestream to try to point out the differences between the copy the police officer watched and the true copy. I want the prosecutor to bring up the full 4 hour cokestream during the trial so they can spend an entire day EFAPing the stream and get Nick to explain his jokes and reaction to AnimeSucksCopeandSneed to a jury.

We are not the same.

>five bucks from... anime sucks cope... seed...
>guhhhhk
>... ...
>whhy is the camera still on
Getting the court reaction to that immortalized in a court transcript because Lord Balldo wanted to play fuck-fuck games with MUH VIDEO AUTHENTICITY would just be the icing on a cake already standing tall from layers upon layers of prior icing and cherries.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

Crackets is turning his criminal trial into a cheap and tawdry version of My Cousin Vinny.

Vinny actually did real trial practice in that movie, not kike doublespeak

 

[Stupor Mario]

So what's the worse case scenario for Nick?
He's still getting simp money from his simps.

The worst case for Nick is the humiliation of having the court find him guilty and then all of us laughing and pointing that out to him.

I don't think he cares about jail or probation or having his kids taken away or really anything as much as he cares about being right 100% of the time and owning the Kiwifags.

 

[3MMA]

View attachment 6340626

It’s obvious that almost ALL Rekieta worries about is his public image. To his detriment socially, personally, & professionally. Great work on that clip, perfectly illustrative of what Nicky says vs what he does.

He's trying to bamboozle the boomer judge with bullshit technology arguments.

That’s been my thought, too. Then he goes off on some random person on twitter today about video compression, etc etc. It couldn’t be clearer that his defense is based on a hope & a prayer that some kind of trickery will win the day. Either a technologically non proficient court, or some lie that really amounts to him saying he didn’t do what everyone saw him do (coke stream) because he wants to catch Pomplin out for saying what he did (via the warrant) in a faggy way, to put it in Balldo-speak. Nick can’t even explain his strategy clearly because it’s complete scum-fuckery.

It isn't even technically correct. He's shaved off so many IQ points he's functionally a tard at this point. That may be permanent.

He’s also gone up an entire Norwood level, maybe even two or more. He’s balding so much that it must be mentioned regarding exactly how Nick has changed.

 

[Captain Manning]

His theory of the case is now "muh video compression"

As I said on Monday...

Somebody already joked (before you edited your post) about an argument where the white shit on his nose is video artifacting.

Now, that hasn't happened (yet), and it would be an even more dumb argument, but this whole thing ventured into stupid land about a thousand or more pages ago. So it wouldn't exactly shock me if it does happen. Very little would shock me at this point.

...very little actually surprises me anymore.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Rekieta has been arguing about his case on Twitter for the last 3 hours

There are so many tweets I don't care enough to archive and screenshot individually, I only archived his main page and took screenshots from that archived page.

UPDATE: Rekieta has returned for another half hour of furious tweeting at detractors including his new nemesis, Cog

The last tweet is particularly delusional since he seems to think the search was in part to look for evidence of neglect when the point of including the report was to inform that the reporters suspected drug abuse












(Archive for above tweets, archive 2)

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

It’s obvious that almost ALL Rekieta worries about is his public image. To his detriment socially, personally, & professionally. Great work on that clip, perfectly illustrative of what Nicky says vs what he does.

That’s been my thought, too. Then he goes off on some random person on twitter today about video compression, etc etc. It couldn’t be clearer that his defense is based on a hope & a prayer that some kind of trickery will win the day. Either a technologically non proficient court, or some lie that really amounts to him saying he didn’t do what everyone saw him do (coke stream) because he wants to catch Pomplin out for saying what he did (via the warrant) in a faggy way, to put it in Balldo-speak. Nick can’t even explain his strategy clearly because it’s complete scum-fuckery.

He’s also gone up an entire Norwood level, maybe even two or more. He’s balding so much that it must be mentioned regarding exactly how Nick has changed.

I think it's as simple as Nick just being in supreme denial and really believing he has done nothing wrong. It also infuriates him that his minor e-celeb status has been destroyed by those lying cops.

There's supposed to be a separate set of rules for wealthy famous people like himself! It was less than an ounce of cocaine for fuck sake!

 

[Not Who You Think]

I don't buy this narrative about young Kayla as an innocent would-be tradwife. I am not denying that she was religious and wanted to be mommy, but we also know she was a "theater kid." And what I know about theater kids in the early '00s is that they liked Star Trek, LiveJournal, and degeneracy.

Regardless of whether these influences characterized her behavior at the time, she was certainly exposed to more deviant ideas than her non-performing peers. I think it's reasonable to assume that these ideas were present early in her relationship with Nick, making her seem like a 'cool girl' despite her desire for a Scandinavian prude lifestyle. Given such an undercurrent in their relationship, transitioning into active deviancy was inevitable and almost certainly mutual.

The gay boyfriend fetish, "biting," and Anne Rice movies are strongly supportive of the idea that Kayla took in ideas from her theater friends...

Kayla is a greedy woman who wants it all. Good, bad, healthy, unhealthy. She is a woman of incompatible passions and this is largely why she is a such wreck and used to send such mixed signals about her character (well, before she was so publicly outed as a bad mother).

There is enough evidence that Kayla was never an innocent would-be tradwife. Kayla and Nick claimed to be Christian without any real conviction or demonstration beyond lip-service (Nick's own heretical beliefs were apparent in his streams prior to his downfall). Nick went to male strip shows with Kayla since they were cheerleaders together in college.

It isn't just the theatre friends who would play a role in this.

Taking the Cheerleaders to the Strip Club:

Nick still going to "Dick Shows" with Kayla and the Cheerleaders 55 Other Men:

Note: Despite speaking like veterans of the strip club scene and being familiar the 18 different moves of strippers and the general atmosphere, these man have only been to strip clubs 3 times...

Also, I trimmed down the times Drexel expressed admiration for Magic Mike, the sequel, and male strippers in general.

On the Subject of Trad-ness: Homeschooling

The Rekieta's didn't link their homeschooling to being trad. They just didn't want to be told by anyone how to raise their children.

Kayla on Public Education:

This is under the pretense that comes with Kayla saying that she is pro "family values" while leaving the audience to assume what that means.

Kayla makes arguments against the public school because she doesn't think they should determine what a child needs to learn. Kayla also says that the public schools don't teach children how to be good people. Arguments for standardized testing aside, she is inadvertently taking the position that kids in public schools wouldn't learn how to be good people at home (because parents are totally absent?).

Nick makes the nonsensical argument that no one should go to high school because no one likes older people who still act like high schoolers. Rather tellingly, Nick fails to recognize that the issue is the failure to mature past high school. To put it another way; a teenager acting like a teenager isn't a problem, an adult acting like a teenager is. Moving on...

Essentially, Kayla wants to determine whether her kids are "good enough" in a general sense, let alone good people. Funny stuff, considering who Nick and Kayla have proven themselves to be. It is as if they could never imagine themselves being unfit parents.

The cost was being more hands-on, but Kayla didn't really want to do that either because, surprise surprise...

Kayla would rather watch Star Trek:

Evidently, Nick and Kayla didn't really want to raise their kids at all, neglecting them to the point of criminality where the government they despised had to intervene with the help and approval of locals (including their church and Kayla's own family). Sadly, what they are doing is likely motivated more by possessiveness than love... and has been for a long time.

After all, they certainly believe that it is their right to do whatever they want with their kids. It's the one point they have been most consistent on.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

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.

Ahem. In MN,

• Current spouses can be prevented by* their spouse from testifying about** events at all and about private communications that occurred during the marriage. Current spouses can choose to testify about communications before or after marriage.
• Former spouses can be prevented by the other former spouse from testifying about communications (statements) made during the marriage. Former spouses can choose to testify about any events (before, during, and after the marriage), and about communications before and after the marriage.

* In MN it is the non-testifying spouse who can assert the privilege.

** In MN the testimonial privilege relates to testimony either for or against a current spouse (see statutory language below).

The marital privilege is construed narrowly in MN.

In addition, in MN, at least, there are some qualifiers, and crimes against the spouse or children are one (MN Stat. 595.02) (emphasis mine):

a) A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, without the consent of the other, be examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage. This exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other, nor to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other or against a child of either or against a child under the care of either spouse, nor to a criminal action or proceeding in which one is charged with homicide or an attempt to commit homicide and the date of the marriage of the defendant is subsequent to the date of the offense, nor to an action or proceeding for nonsupport, neglect, dependency, or termination of parental rights.​

And while a sham marriage can gut spousal privilege, the bar is high to prove it was enough of a sham to do so. Random case, which also differentiates MN's statutory privilege (rooted in common law) from Federal law, which is just common law.

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?"

If you're suggesting that someone would see through a Nick/April marriage and therefore deny the privilege, see above.

Rekieta has been arguing about his case on Twitter for the last 3 hours

There are so many tweets I don't care enough to archive and screenshot individually, I only archived his main page and took screenshots from that archived page.

His first screed was too long and had to be archived individually.
His theory of the case is now "muh video compression"

View attachment 6340363
Archive

The rest:
View attachment 6340365
View attachment 6340349
View attachment 6340350
View attachment 6340347
View attachment 6340348
View attachment 6340345
View attachment 6340346
View attachment 6340342
View attachment 6340343
(Archive for above tweets)

Amazing a "lawyer" is unfamiliar with the phrase, "a distinction without a difference."

And yes, Nick, I KNOW your point is "THE COP LIED" (I even wrote a comment yesterday-ish predicting that you would do exactly what you are doing.).

You see, it's not that no one understands the nuance of your clever argument; it's that it's a profoundly stupid one. You know damn well the cop didn't "lie." But if it matters so much, show how the video you know he watched is materially different to the granting of the warrant than...whatever hidden thing you claim to be "your stream." Hint: the answer isn't expressed in KB or watermarks.

Riddle me this, Joker: if I watched one day of the Depp trial on an hour delay, vs live the other days, am I a liar to say I watched the trial?

But it's also not that no one understands that you're just trying to get from one day to the next by making yourself a pain in the ass. Yes, we get it; you think bc you're at the beginning, this is enough to call his averments into question. But you're full of shit and operating in bad faith. You're just wasting time. But worse: you won't just fucking say directly that you'll say anything, including in extremely bad faith. Embarrassing that you go out actually defending your "I'll say anything" approach to a legal strategy. And it not only makes you look stupid and desperate, but in no circumstance is it going to make a difference.

The cop didn't lie and you're a tool.

Ps. get some fucking neosporin.

 

[Fapcop]

Rekieta has been arguing about his case on Twitter for the last 3 hours

There are so many tweets I don't care enough to archive and screenshot individually, I only archived his main page and took screenshots from that archived page.

His first screed was too long and had to be archived individually.
His theory of the case is now "muh video compression"

View attachment 6340363
Archive

The rest:
View attachment 6340365
View attachment 6340349
View attachment 6340350
View attachment 6340347
View attachment 6340348
View attachment 6340345
View attachment 6340346
View attachment 6340342
View attachment 6340343
(Archive for above tweets)

Oh boy… Nick is on coke again. And possibly also drunk.

Those of my Kiwis who know their stimulants, know that Twitter and coke/amphetamine go together like whisky dick and balldos.

I’m just picturing Nick coping and seething, writing half a dozen replies and doing a fat line, before throwing himself at the next dozen of tweets.

Likely interspersed with an “APRIL! KAYLA!!! Come see how I’m DESTROYING these kiwis! YEAH!”