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.

[MechanicusAdmin]

Consent to the bodycam footage being released Nick. Prove everybody wrong and get the big win you deserve. Or be a faggot whatever.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Nick's saying:
"The cop said on the warrant request that the video he watched was the same as the original, but it was actually a reupload by COG. So that means COG could have edited the video and presented it as the original and no one would have have known it was edited. The cop knew this was a possibility and lied by saying that it was the original on the warrant on purpose to fuck with me."

Today I found out that if you just delete the evidence of you doing the crime, the cops can't use that evidence. "Cops hate this man! See how he avoided jail with this one simple trick!"

 

[Midnight Energy Drink]

My video?! MY video?!!!! Only a PLEB would call a video with such COLOR GRADING my video!
- Nicholas Winding Rekieta

 

[Fortyone]

If I didn't know any better I would swear Nick was on some sort of upper like coke or adderal during his tweeting spree, makes me think of some possible explanations:

1. I've heard from oil field workers that cocaine is their drug of choice since you piss clean soon after doing it, could he be back on the stuff? Idk if hair tests would work on him since he's done it so often in the past
2. Possible prescription for adderall? He seems like the type who could get in contact with a crooked pharmacist or doctor.

He's probably clean and just desperately trying to defend the tattered shit covered rag that is his public image but you never know. I can only imagine the coping and excuses him and his family uses with locals (if he even has any local friends or connections left that aren't from the internet that is)

 

[mailfrawd]

11.5K posts in less than 2 years.

This is hilarious. Nick hired a lawyer who is even more terminally online than he is.

I pray that his dumbass motion to suppress the warrant fails and he takes his criminal case to trial.

 

[Artificial Stupidity]

I'm starting to think nick thinks he's the smartest person in his trial.

It's fast becoming this scene from idiocracy...

https://youtu.be/bOSdtsJg_LU

I actually hope nick wins his case now, because it will make him believe he's invincible, he will dunk on the farms but that's nothing new.

He will honestly believe he beat the case and the coke was imagined!

You can beat this nick I believe in you!
It won't change my opinion of you but it will make for excellent content you will float about how everyone was wrong but it won't change anything about your dirty house & the coke.

 

[LiquidKid]

That's more of him trying to lie to his fans through his trademark ambiguous implications.

Nick's saying:
"The cop said on the warrant request that the video he watched was the same as the original, but it was actually a reupload by COG. So that means COG could have edited the video and presented it as the original and no one would have have known it was edited. The cop knew this was a possibility and lied by saying that it was the original on the warrant on purpose to fuck with me."

View attachment 6342679

It's an argument designed so, even if it doesn't work (it likely won't, any reasonable person would believe that cog's reupload is essentially a replacement for the original, especially if it matches any testimony made or online discussions of the stream. It also ignores the fact the cop said it was the video "taken off" Nick's channel, which means it has to be a reupload, since that's the only way they could have gotten a video that was taken off before they could watch it on Nick's channel), it'll give his simps a way to ignore the video because he's using words like "edited" and claiming the police lied. Now they'll just assume the bad stuff Nick was doing was somehow edited with AI or crisis actors or something.

View attachment 6342791

What I want to know is if there is literally any legal precedent for “the video was a copy of the original as therefore it shouldn’t have been allowed to use to get a warrant” because for the life of me I can’t find any such cases that apply to the Rekieta situation.
It’s clear the entire argument is Nick trying to claim what the cop didn’t say. “I was able to review the video taken off the YouTube channel” makes no mention of it being the original, or being “his”‘ video. He’s trying to argue a semantic that doesn’t exist

 

[AltisticRight]

My video?! MY video?!!!! Only a PLEB would call a video with such COLOR GRADING my video!
- Nicholas Winding Rekieta

Here this skeleton is babbling about fucking colour gradings of his potato footage produced by a $5000+ camera. A webcam could do better. What colour, his piss filter to hide those spots? None of his shitty streams were correctly colour graded to begin with. He doesn't know what he's talking about. This sounds like when he was trying to convince Juju he's a toxicologist because he read 40 papers and leaned of fancy words like norahhcocainah and benzohkshtiebekfnewhatever. What a spoiled brat.

 

[Yeet Ninja]

I don't know if others have posted it already but Nate the Lawyer put out a short video the motion to dismiss. This portion I found interesting:

"Apparently, the video had been set to private on Nick's Channel, which means police would have needed a warrant to access it or subpoena YouTube directly to get the entire video. Instead, they relied on an edited version from a different source. Now, here's the kicker: they're arguing that this edited video can't be authenticated, meaning it shouldn't have been used to justify a warrant in the first place. Prosecutors may push back on this argument because even if the video was edited, it might still be enough to establish probable cause. Remember, we're talking about a pretty low standard here, and prosecutors don't need to prove Nick's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially at this pre-trial stage. The state just needs to show that there was a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime could be found at his house. This video argument could be a winner for Nick, but it's all going to hinge on how different the video the police saw was versus the original video. So, I'm assuming Nick's team is going to give the court the original video, then give the court the altered video or the allegedly altered video, and see if the distinctions between the two are so great that it would essentially destroy probable cause. And remember, Nick is going to have to show that police did this intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth..."

My understanding is it's literally the exact same video (obviously outside of the compression from downloading and reuploading). If they showed the judge the two videos side by side he's just going to laugh at them. It's the Pam meme from The Office.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I don't know if others have posted it already but Nate the Lawyer put out a short video the motion to dismiss. This portion I found interesting:

"Apparently, the video had been set to private on Nick's Channel, which means police would have needed a warrant to access it or subpoena YouTube directly to get the entire video. Instead, they relied on an edited version from a different source. Now, here's the kicker: they're arguing that this edited video can't be authenticated, meaning it shouldn't have been used to justify a warrant in the first place. Prosecutors may push back on this argument because even if the video was edited, it might still be enough to establish probable cause. Remember, we're talking about a pretty low standard here, and prosecutors don't need to prove Nick's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially at this pre-trial stage. The state just needs to show that there was a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime could be found at his house. This video argument could be a winner for Nick, but it's all going to hinge on how different the video the police saw was versus the original video. So, I'm assuming Nick's team is going to give the court the original video, then give the court the altered video or the allegedly altered video, and see if the distinctions between the two are so great that it would essentially destroy probable cause. And remember, Nick is going to have to show that police did this intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth. Now, let's move on to the next issue, which is Nick's..."

My understanding is it's literally the exact same video (outside of the obvious compression from downloading and reuploading). If they showed the judge the two videos side by side he's just going to laugh at them. It's the Pam meme from The Office.

Yes its literally a retard argument from a lolyer that believes that the fact taht they aren't technically the same video means its all going to be lost. Cops hate this one weird trick!

 

[Vibralldo]

Here this skeleton is babbling about fucking colour gradings of his potato footage produced by a $5000+ camera. A webcam could do better. What colour, his piss filter to hide those spots? None of his shitty streams were correctly colour graded to begin with. He doesn't know what he's talking about. This sounds like when he was trying to convince Juju he's a toxicologist because he read 40 papers and leaned of fancy words like norahhcocainah and benzohkshtiebekfnewhatever. What a spoiled brat.

Erm, actually, the original video was crystal clear and showed Nick sober and well-mannered.

Unfortunately you'll never see this version because Nick deleted it for no particular reason. You only saw cog's version which was falsely edited to make it look like Nick was on cocaine.

 

[DavidS877]

Google also thinks he operates out of a Lane Bryant (for non-Amerimutts, Lane Bryant is a clothing store for fat women).

View attachment 6342674

Sadly, if you put in just suite 119 then it properly comes back as a UPS Store, box 220 probably.

 

[BaddestSeagull]

View attachment 6342864

My video?! MY video?!!!! Only a PLEB would call a video with such COLOR GRADING my video!
- Nicholas Winding Rekieta

That's an amazing argument. It's only a step away from claiming that a cop only thought he saw something because his screen was showing wrong colors/resolution/whatever crap. From now on, cops can't rely on any digital evidence unless they have personaly been there when it was filmed and can confirm it's 1:1 with reality.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

What I want to know is if there is literally any legal precedent for “the video was a copy of the original as therefore it shouldn’t have been allowed to use to get a warrant” because for the life of me I can’t find any such cases that apply to the Rekieta situation.
It’s clear the entire argument is Nick trying to claim what the cop didn’t say. “I was able to review the video taken off the YouTube channel” makes no mention of it being the original, or being “his”‘ video. He’s trying to argue a semantic that doesn’t exist

There isn't, is saying that because the police didn't inform the judge of a whole number of possibilities that he was therefore lying and as a result the warrant should be thrown out.

It is a piss poor argument for a variety of reasons, not least the fact the police didn't say it was the original video - and if you actually read the warrant in its totality it also states that Nick had deleted the original. Which therefore means that they never intended to say it was the original video, and in fact they used the term "taken off of". I am going to go out on a limb here and say that because police are not required to be particularly good at writing or describing things, if it was possible to get a warrant thrown so easily because of imprecise language then these sorts of issues would be a field day for lawyers, and yet that is not what we see in general throughout the courts. Judges are, in the main, not stupid and know what they are reading.

The second issue here is that the standard for getting a warrant thrown out is that the police must be lying, as in they must be intentionally misrepresenting material facts. Not informing the judge of the irrelevant minutiae of how a file can be edited is not a lie, just like if I post a video of Nick being a faggot on here and forget to caveat all the ways in which downloading and uploading the file changes it. It's a nonsense. The standards of evidence to obtain a warrant are not the same as those for a trial, they can be based on far shakier foundations than a conviction, the police do not need to ensure that each file used in gaining the warrant is free of editing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the same judge is presiding over his CHIPS and criminal cases, and reading the court records from his CHIPS cases shows they are not buying Balldo's bullshit.

If that is the case and he thinks this will work on the judge in the fucking criminal trial, he is seriously deluded as to his situation. I think once his attempt to get this warrant thrown out fails he is going to take a plea.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

Is this the "full story" he keeps saying will come out?

It should be obvious by now but as long as you keep your trap shut, you’re allowed to allowed to raise contradictory defenses in court.

His one true “full story” won’t be decided until one of his layered defenses prevails, then like Schrödinger’s cat, the continuum of potential “full stories” will collapse to be centered around what worked in court.

 

[ChromaQuack]

Half of his art is movie-related, the other half is stuff like this:
View attachment 6342640
Worse than dogs playing poker and velvet Elvises.

How boring, if they wanted to visit an art exhibition that heavily features gray dead colors, movies and sexualized imagery they should have just taken a trip to the HR Giger museum, at least his pieces are properly interesting to look at, not to mention FUNNY and WEIRD.

Come on Nicky, a supposed multimillionaire like you can't take his side hoe for a week to Switzerland? is the trust fund looking that bad? Are you going to pass on the opportunity to get 'animesuckscopeandsneedx10' levels of blitzed at the world's WEIRDEST bar? it even has the ceiling cats that you love!

Spoiler

 

[Harm]

I'm a bit confused. Nick is claiming that the officer, instead of watching Nick's livestream, watched a reupload by Kino Casino's punching bag Cog. That would seem to be this livestream:

Watching back this stream, what Cog plays is a Twitter clip (which no longer exists) from the user "NiceNameStupid," and then he watches Rekieta's original uploaded livestream directly from the Rekieta Law Youtube channel:



In fact, the cokestream stream wasn't set to private until Cog had already been reacting to it for hours. He was still able to restream and react to the original Youtube upload because he had already accessed and cached the livestream hours before it being set to private. Unless I missed something, he doesn't switch over to any reupload in the entire livestream. I'd be surprised if any had been uploaded that fast anyways as, like Nick points out, any reupload would have to be compressed and that takes time, especially for a 4 hour video.

TL;DR: If the officers really did use Cog's reaction to get the warrant, Cog was watching the true and authentic original the whole stream, so this whole "compression" issue is bullshit.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

TL;DR: If the officers really did use Cog's reaction to get the warrant, Cog was watching the true and authentic original the whole stream, so this whole "compression" issue is bullshit.

Cog reuploaded the stream in full, without his reaction to it, which is what the officer watched.

 

[LiquidCancer]

If they showed the judge the two videos side by side he's just going to laugh at them. It's the Pam meme from The Office.

 

[Fapcop]

That's more of him trying to lie to his fans through his trademark ambiguous implications.

Nick's saying:
"The cop said on the warrant request that the video he watched was the same as the original, but it was actually a reupload by COG. So that means COG could have edited the video and presented it as the original and no one would have have known it was edited. The cop knew this was a possibility and lied by saying that it was the original on the warrant on purpose to fuck with me."

View attachment 6342679

It's an argument designed so, even if it doesn't work (it likely won't, any reasonable person would believe that cog's reupload is essentially a replacement for the original, especially if it matches any testimony made or online discussions of the stream. It also ignores the fact the cop said it was the video "taken off" Nick's channel, which means it has to be a reupload, since that's the only way they could have gotten a video that was taken off before they could watch it on Nick's channel), it'll give his simps a way to ignore the video because he's using words like "edited" and claiming the police lied. Now they'll just assume the bad stuff Nick was doing was somehow edited with AI or crisis actors or something.

View attachment 6342791

It’s such a retarded focus on something that neither the cop nor the warrant ever said.

(Though I suppose a handful of the lowest tier of baldowashers may buy it.)

It’s also the kind of low hanging shyster faggotry that Nick specializes in.

Like when he insinuates show after show that “there is a conspiracy” and that he will “tell his side of the story when he can”… But when confronted with the ounce of cocaine on his show in a superchat, Nick goes: “I have never said anything about my case except that it sucks to be in the system!”

In Nick’s mind he’s really a super slick operator, who’ll get to wink at the camera and say: “I never said I’m innocent! But the court found me not guilty! Isn’t that FUNNY?!”

My understanding is it's literally the exact same video (obviously outside of the compression from downloading and reuploading). If they showed the judge the two videos side by side he's just going to laugh at them. It's the Pam meme from The Office.

AFAIK, Nick’s whole argument is that the officer lied about watching his stream in the application for a search warrant.

Except that Officer Pomploun never actually said what Nick is trying to twist his statement into saying.

Given that there’s not even any material difference in the videos, I’d reckon Nick’s real goal here is to later be able to say: “Yeah well, the cops lied! And the court said that it doesn’t matter that they lied! Can you believe this shit?!”