If I am to believe all the "psychologist" wine-moms who spend all day creating content about narcissism, then it doesn't really matter to Nick - he enjoys the attention, affirmation and the ability to sell the lie, regardless of who it is directed at.
Conversely, the mere fact people online dispute Nick's obvious bullshit is, according to the wine-moms, giving this nigga daily aneurysms.
Well, I'm no wine mom , but I can confirm that both of those things can be true. By saying a narcissist "enjoys" attention/being the center, etc., it doesn't mean every second is a delight - they get mad and roar and carp and whine, are miserable, etc. when the attention is condemnation or friction. But at a fundamental level attention (good, bad, indifferent) is literal fuel - it feeds their ego at a core kind of level and drives them forward to get what they want (more attention, more power, lifestyle things, whatever).
The daily aneurysms are frustration when manipulation fails and therefore control or some kind of power (broad term) over people is lost/not acquired or takes effort to keep. But that coal engine is still being fed by any swirl around that. That's one reason greyrocking is effective as management - not only does the person doing it have a mindset necessary to avoid being emotionally susceptible to or manipulated by the narc, but it also ruins the fun for and stymies the narc itself bc there's little fuel.
The H from the original Hollywood sign is owned by a memorabilia collector in Minnesota.
Lol, Bill fucking Mack. Of course. That's just Nick's taste. You can buy him at his mall gallery in Vegas:
bill mack.com will give you a flavor. A combo of 80s poster-style art (look, a portrait of a composer with musical notes in the background) and a bunch of bas-relief nudes of either nubile young women or mother and child to hang on the wall.
His freestanding bronze sculptures are the best of the lot.
I know all of this^ has been discussed before. I'm amused Nick hasn't been shamed into better taste. But then again, spending tens of thousands of dollars has clearly offered him VIP access to...a tourist attraction that anyone can attend. Even that kid in the background of one of the April photos.
Speaking of, for once I am truly taken aback. Not just lunch, not just going to
Sexpo some tattoo convention as a threesome, not just going to see a movie on the low, but a full "dress in sequins and publish pictures to the internet" date with his mistress. They've gone full lifestyle with this. Kayla's humiliation is complete and total, the Mallory Ortberg of Minnesota.
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.
There is no such thing. Even if you streeeeeeeetch and try to apply some bastardized best evidence rule to a warrant (n/a), if the original is unavailable you obviously can't use it so you use the best copy you have that reasonably appears to be a copy of whatever the thing is. This part of the implied argument is rot, and they know it.
Also, saying, "I reviewed the affidavit" (for example) does not require you to have reviewed the ink-signatured document with a raised notary seal for it to be truthful or for it to support a warrant. But this is a secondary argument at this moment, just an insinuation that what was Re viewed might not be reliable.
His point at this point is THE COP IS A LIAR. Also a loser argument. You don't have to specify in the warrant application "I ignored the paper copy of the affidavit in my files because I went to lunch and it was in a stack of papers on my desk and therefore unsecured, so I personally accessed the court SOR, printed it out, and read it," etc., for every item mentioned. And not doing so doesn't make you a liar whose application should have been denied and but for the "lie" would have been.
He's arguing on x that he's not arguing (at this time) whether the stream watched is accurate (but yes, let's talk about all the ways it surely possibly isn't), but merely that THE COP IS A LIAR, so everything he says is probably a lie. Of course the insinuation is that ALSO maybe the cop watched a manipulated copy of the stream, but he's setting up, in order-ish: 1) THE COP LIED TO THE JUDGE so warrant improper, 2) THE COP IS A LIAR - if he lied about this in the warrant, he probably lied about other things in the warrant (and asserts one), and 3) LYING LIARS LIE - to plant seeds for future skepticism about the cop's truthfulness when this effort on the warrant fails. ...And 4) to signal to the state that this will be a pain in the ass to litigate, so call me. [I'm omitting all the public perception/ self-perception/deception reasons he wants these arguments on record.]
