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.

[Obnoxious Asshole]

Imagine getting owned by cog. BY COG !!!!

The Balldo has fallen far from the nightstand when Cog is mogging you. If the minkie dole bludger can take a W off you, maybe it's time to admit your life is fucked.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

>people thinking he’s going to plea out

Stupid niggers, he’s cycling between denial and anger.

 

[Vibralldo]

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

View attachment 6340830
View attachment 6340828
View attachment 6340827
View attachment 6340826
View attachment 6340823
View attachment 6340822
View attachment 6340821
View attachment 6340820
View attachment 6340819
View attachment 6340834

(Archive for above tweets, archive 2)

So, Nick's argument is that CPS went to his house before and determined that it wasn't enough for an investigation, and that means that he can never be guilty of child abuse after that, making testimony of people close to him and video evidence of him intoxicated inadmissible on the warrant request?

 

[HarveySperg41]

Imagine getting owned by cog. BY COG !!!!

How embarrassing!

 

[Fat At The Internet]

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.

Flip the argument around. Could the cop at the time of submission say with 100% confidence that is was not materially different? You can prove after the fact that there is no difference but is it reasonable claim at the time of submission. Then you can hammer the case with supplementary clips that are modified, kinochet fart videos or whatever, to emphasise doubt on second hand sources to put archivers on suicide watch.
I don't doubt reports from the public can include archive.is or streamable clips, so idk how they get integrated or cited in warrants before someone gets a knock on the door.

 

[repentance]

Yes, and that's why I think Nick wrote the Franks part, and White included it due to his client's insistence.
You’d think the argument you spend the most time on would be the one you believe is the strongest.
Why is there so little focus on Franks in the motion, but so much attention given to it on his social media?
I think Nick wrote it and is angry that people find the argument stupid. Narcissistic ego and all that.

Exactly. The only place the argument matters is in court. Even if every single viewer agrees with Nick, it doesn't matter a damn if the court does not.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

m not saying they'd deny the privilege I'm saying they'd deny the divorce and wedding approval completely until the outstanding issues (the case) was finished. Unless MN has some weird ass divorce rules they wouldn't be able to deal with the kids as part of the decree anyway with these outstanding issues. I don't live in MN though, so grain of salt. I am not saying the privilege would be invalidated I'm just thinking it wouldn't matter because there would.be no approval for divorce and remarriage until afterward anyway.

A court is not going to deny a divorce because you have other shit going on. A divorce decree with a custody determination/parenting time plan will take into account the full situation and various factors, and what they decide will be in place and apply until any other conditions set out in the order indicate there can be a change. And at the same time cps would be paying attention to changes in the home environment and making it's decisions with that in mind. Courts weigh a bunch of factors in assessing custody and parenting time issues (those are two different things). If you agree it's easier...but if you were in a situation that you don't have custody even married, you'd have to work with CPS and daily court to make a change if, for example, on parent was totally cleaned up and might be considered favorably. If you don't agree (and in a situation like the Rs) it could get ugly litigating. Basically family court has a lot of equitable considerations and they'll make an order based on kids' best interests. Without getting into every possible scenario, there could be a lot of outcomes, but it's not going to mean a divorce is "denied"; it might take awhile and be a 3-way event with CPS to sort out the kids part.


And you don't get an "approval" for a wedding. You apply for a marriage license, and it's not a deep dive...anywhere. Here's the mn license app. It's administrative. Name, basic info, be over 18, not be currently married. You don't even have to have a SSN now (as of like 6 days ago).

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/517.08

You do have to appear in person [there's an exception process]. But your marriage license is not going to be denied because you have pending charges or anything else..

 

[Why am I doing this?]

Who would? The key word in using "Witness Intimidation" in regards to Ralph is "Intimidation". I mean he might make the witness violently ill or unable to stop laughing at him before actual harm occurs?

Among other things, Ralph has raw dogged black prostitutes and the cheapest whores that central America has to offer, engaged in sexual activity of some kind with a Mexican male prostitute, had some cheeky passed out rape with an IP2 village bicycle, stood inside April's stink damage radius and directly touched Kayla "non-sentient nigger cum receptacle" Rekieta.

As a biological weapon his existence constitutes a direct threat to human life and is in violation of the Geneva Convention.

 

[Lemon-Lime Turpentine]

a woman with a Wisconsin accent sings about lying on the warrant?

I assume you mean this. Courtesy of @Scan_Lines (it's hilarious by the way).

While I've been ill for the last 24, I've managed to transcribe all of Rekietas delusions about Ms. Sweep and put them into a musical form with the help of AI. Lyrics are mine, the rest is AI.

Please enjoy. (Best enjoyed with headphones)

View attachment 6313648

 

[AnOminous]

Could the cop at the time of submission say with 100% confidence that is was not materially different?

It doesn't matter in the least. "100% confidence" is not a burden of proof in any kind of case in any kind of court.

 

[Captain Manning]

Exactly. The only place the argument matters is in court. Even if every single viewer agrees with Nick, it doesn't matter a damn if the court does not.

Not wrong, but I honestly believe all of this horseshit is being peddled in the hopes that the public (and not so much the court) believes that the outcome of this is the result of the evil corrupt gubament railroading him.

Some people here think he's gone completely insane, and actually believes his own bullshit now. And maybe he has. However, I am still leaning more towards him knowing he's fucked, and wanting to spin a victim narrative to try and save face.

The alternative is to plead out, and I just don't think he has it in him. Not yet anyways.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Nick's arguments are all retarded so lets dig in

1. "its not a motion to suppress" Motion to suppress is in the title, fucking moron.

2. "the cop lied!" The cop didn't lie, you are twisting language into a pretzel that at best makes it seem like the cop used inprecise language, the reality is we all understand what he is saying "muh compression" is an argument against it being used at trial, not probable cause.

3. "Muh CPS determined it wasn't child abuse" SO THE FUCK WHAT THEY GOT A WARRANT FOR DRUGS NICK. THE DRUGS. THE DRUGS NICK. THE NEGLECT COMES BECAUSE NOW THEY KNOW YOU HAVE DRUGS. TONS OF DRUGS.

 

[KittyLoaf]

I think what really gets him is that his new intellectual peer group is Ethan Ralph and Aaron Imholte. He went from Lawpope to Mo, Curly and Larry.

Whoa, don't insult the Three Stooges like that.

 

[HarblMcDavid]

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

...did this nigger have a booze soaked synapse accidentally fire that caused him to remember the part at the very end of the Rittenhouse Trial where the prosecution revealed they had a "better copy" of footage they claimed showed Rittenhouse doing a no-no which they hadn't disclosed to the defense?

I remember everyone on Cracket's stream making a big deal out of that, and in fairness, it could have been:
If the better copy clearly showed something that the inferior copy did not due to it being drone footage (iirc) from hundreds of feet away where pixels do matter when your subject is a couple dozen at best, that might swing the case, hard.

This is not that scenario.

Let us not forget that even in that scenario, at trial, where the bar is much higher, it was ultimately handwaved despite being a potentially grounds to nix the whole trial right there and then.

He may have gotten caught with a ounce of coke, but the cops clearly never found the 2 tons of cope in the basement.

 

[Captain Manning]

3. "Muh CPS determined it wasn't child abuse" SO THE FUCK WHAT THEY GOT A WARRANT FOR DRUGS NICK. THE DRUGS. THE DRUGS NICK. THE NEGLECT COMES BECAUSE NOW THEY KNOW YOU HAVE DRUGS. TONS OF DRUGS.

No, anime avatar prosecutor child! There are no drugs, and the white powder on his nose is actually video artifacting! Enjoy disbarment!

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

PFlip the argument around. Could the cop at the time of submission say with 100% confidence that is was not materially different? You can prove after the fact that there is no difference but is it reasonable claim at the time of submission. Then you can hammer the case with supplementary clips that are modified, kinochet fart videos or whatever, to emphasise doubt on second hand sources to put archivers on suicide watch.
I don't doubt reports from the public can include archive.is or streamable clips, so idk how they get integrated or cited in warrants before someone gets a knock on the door.

No because that's just bullshit. Sure, you can argue anything. It doesn't have to make sense to argue it. I get it, but I don't respect it, on two bases: ethical and intellectual/ cleverness/legal skill.

The cop watched the stream and saw what he saw. He wasn't trying to hide that he didn't watch it live or directly on Nick's channel: let's get real - there was no reason for him to do so bc there's no substantive difference between the live stream and some archive of it. All that Nick is trying to suggest is that the cop was lying to hide...something (lol the projection!).

Nick knows the cop watched his stream [hey I'm listening to MATI right now...oh wait, it's not live or on joshmoon.com so I just totally lied to you and nothing I heard is real or reliable for the fact that it was said].

Nick knows the cop watched his stream. He's merely trying to say the cop's word ON EVERYTHING is worthless bc of some completely nonsensical "but what if ...could be...." supposed lie about what he watched.

That is literally all he's trying to do at this point...well, that and to set up a second-line effort of requiring everybody to waste time scrutinizing whether there was a quarter-second missing or more in the archived or rebroadcast or whatever version of "his stream" - which, btw, could never be produced if you follow his current line of argument, bc the mere fact of recording it changes it somehow. You see how his arguments are just dumb? Arguing in the alternative is not wrong, but in this case, what he's arguing is of absolutely no value.

Spin it out: OK, cop lied...yet everything he witnessed and documented is absolutely factual. So what was achieved? (Answer: something involving a lonely night and a balldo.)

And his going out publicly and claiming "you people just don't understand my sophisticated legal arguments" is third-grade tier.

It's also just disingenuous bull. Third-tier point is just to be an ass.

Whatever he watched will not turn out to show completely fabricated footage of Nick or that coke stache (BECAUSE THAT HAPPENED). So the only point of this is THE COP (who didn't lie) IS A LIAR. No evidence, no argument, not even a legit technology argument. In fact, the fact that he's said "even compression will change a file" shows that he KNOWS there's no substantive difference between the iteration that the cop watched and the live. And he has no basis to suggest that "taken off" his channel/stream was a deliberate lie or obfuscation.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

Nick's arguments are all retarded so lets dig in

1. "its not a motion to suppress" Motion to suppress is in the title, fucking moron.

2. "the cop lied!" The cop didn't lie, you are twisting language into a pretzel that at best makes it seem like the cop used inprecise language, the reality is we all understand what he is saying "muh compression" is an argument against it being used at trial, not probable cause.

3. "Muh CPS determined it wasn't child abuse" SO THE FUCK WHAT THEY GOT A WARRANT FOR DRUGS NICK. THE DRUGS. THE DRUGS NICK. THE NEGLECT COMES BECAUSE NOW THEY KNOW YOU HAVE DRUGS. TONS OF DRUGS.

I feel like this can all be explained by knowing that Nick is the primary lawyer in his criminal case. The other guy is a fill in for Barnes and is doing what Barnes wants, which is for Nick to fall on his sword for a retarded 2nd and 4th Amendment arguments.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I feel like this can all be explained by knowing that Nick is the primary lawyer in his criminal case. The other guy is a fill in for Barnes and is doing what Barnes wants, which is for Nick to fall on his sword for a retarded 2nd and 4th Amendment arguments.

The Barneswalker's shit certainly reflects that, spends no time on the 'franks' and all the time on dumb shit.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

The Barneswalker's shit certainly reflects that, spends no time on the 'franks' and all the time on dumb shit.

I have no doubt that should Nick lose (signs point to yes), he is going to appeal it for a decade with Barnes gleefully taking Grandpa Owen’s oil money from Celeste and Bob.

 

[Mister Friendly Dude]

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)

So, I'm no legal expert nor a legal scholar, but is discussing your legal strategy with randos online part of Nick's masterplan?

The prosecution must love Balldoman.