- Joined
- Apr 20, 2022
ralph's own words are he was streaming people coming to and from the courthouse to dox people. it's a dead end this rate. I hope they let the trial air.
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Rekieta, Kayla Rekieta, April Imholte
- Thread starter Useful_Mistake
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
To be fair, Randazza's rates are worth it for a case where his level of expertise is required. This is nothing you need Randazza for. It's like bringing a Vincent Black Shadow to a dirt bike rally. He's virtually guaranteed to be out more money for hiring Randazza than he'd be if he hired Lionel Hutz who then spectacularly lost.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
We don't really need a plan. Just pay for it. We might want to wait for someone else to get it first since it's the first buyer who has to pay for the actual transcription. Everyone subsequent just has to pay for a copy[*]. But it's just a matter of finding out who does the transcripts and calling them.
Given the brief length of the hearing it's probably in the mid hundreds even if we have to pay for being the first to get it. And if we did we should watermark it with Kiwi Farms so nobody like Nick can use it and he has to pay for his own. It'd serve that bastard right for all the times he got full documents from courts but only used them in his streams while never making them available, which pissed me off even at the time although I didn't bitch about it.
[*] Or at least this is standard practice most places. Someone, maybe nool, probably should just to find out whether they just do one automatically for the court or whether someone has already ordered it.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
I think on Tuesday's MatI, null said he had already paid for an expedited transcript. I may be off, someone feel free to correct me.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
Very different topic, so apologies for double post
Ralph may be under investigation for witness intimidation in this case:
Ralph may be under investigation for witness intimidation in this case:
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Won't happen, because Ralph couldn't intimidate a paranoid schizophrenic if he tried.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2021
"ya honuh, im just a pathetic retarded cowardly bish. ive backed down from every fight i've ever challenged.
theres no way anyone could be intimidated by me!"
- Joined
- May 5, 2022
I did some digging, it wasn't leaks of him Bashing Uncivil, it apparently was Kurt (seemingly) taking offense he wasn't in Nick's super sekret chat. Sorry, that is a theory of mine at least.
It certainly feels like it, Uncivil was going in hard on Nick's motion to suppress like Nick goes in on crack or Ralph goes in on shit-talking.
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
Kurt might have wisened up. He is only a pawn to be used by Nick. The good thing about this case is that as it goes on, the lines become more well defined as they are drawn.
Joe mentioned he got documents from Kurt in Nick's case, and that is a healthier association for him.
- Joined
- May 5, 2022
Not to get offtopic, but Kurt needs to quit streaming for a living imho. He's too emotionally invested into this case to where he might end up as the lolcow. Unless his dunking on Nick was an act, possible but unlikely imo. If it was a hobby with some income I think he'd do just fine so long as he doesn't get assraped by income taxes thanks to the changes in the tax code on that.
Do we know when the next court date is?
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
10/28/2024 for Kayla, and 08/28/2024 for April
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
I think it's safe to assume Nick will only get a date scheduled sometime after his 9/6 motion response.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2016
Maybe it's just my limited understanding, but I listened to the whole Uncivil Law stream about Nick's attempt to throw out the warrant and Kurt's feelings aside, it feels like Nick and his lawyer are essentially trying to just word salad their way out of it. From my limited understanding, a mandatory reporter reported to police "I have reason to believe that the Rekeita family has drugs in their possession and/or is neglecting their children", this was enough to secure a warrant, and then the cops found a whole bunch of other shit too.
Is there even any way to get the warrant thrown out, aside from the impossible to prove idea that the initial reporter and the cops are all out to get Nick? A level of conspiracy that would make Deus Ex tell these guys to call down? It feels very much like Nick is just flailing, and is it possible the prosecution can just say "even if you're right about everything in this document, we still win and put you in prison regardless"?
If I'm wrong please explain slowly, I am very stupid.
Is there even any way to get the warrant thrown out, aside from the impossible to prove idea that the initial reporter and the cops are all out to get Nick? A level of conspiracy that would make Deus Ex tell these guys to call down? It feels very much like Nick is just flailing, and is it possible the prosecution can just say "even if you're right about everything in this document, we still win and put you in prison regardless"?
If I'm wrong please explain slowly, I am very stupid.
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
No. The police got a report from the pastor about the kids being possibly neglected and drug use. Sometime after, they followed up with Aaron who supported some of these allegations. A few days before the raid, CPS came back and told the police that this did not rise to the level of neglect or abuse, based on the information they had at the time. Shortly after, the detective watched Nick's cokestream, then applied for warrant for drugs and executed it.
Nick is attacking the child abuse charge--despite it not being part of the warrant--merely added as background information, by saying the CPS letter vindicated him.
He is also attacking the drug charge on two fronts: 1) Aaron was the source of the report (ignoring the pastor who mentioned drugs) and hates his guts, so the police relied on biased sources. 2) The way the detective described the video clip he watched was ambiguous as to the source of the clip itself. Nick is arguing that the clip was not the 'original' and is doctored, so the detective could not have known that the 'cocaine' he saw on Nick's nose was was 100% real of not.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
You more or less got it exactly. I'm not going to predict the outcome, but if it somehow (without much more stuff coming out at the Franks hearing) gets thrown out, I will smack my head in frustration and call the judge a complete and utter retard without remorse.
None of what Nick has produced to date comes anywhere within a statute mile of meeting the standards for invalidating a warrant.
And hey, if I'm wrong, I'll be in good company.
Note, this doesn't mean the part of the bodycam footage with April in it is admissable, nor the deranged cokestream unless they get a better copy. I think there are actually reasonable arguments for excluding those, but those are trial rules. They have nothing to do with probable cause, and while the Barneswalker may have made an effort to conflate the two standards, that's bullshit and isn't going to fly.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
Does Nick even get a Franks hearing yet? My understanding was the judge hadn't even ruled on that and was waiting for the state's response (and then Nick's reply).
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2019
None was mentioned at the omnibus hearing. No further hearings are shown on the docket, just an entry saying the judge will accept submissions under advisement.
Per @luigismanslave : (Source Post)
In 34-CR-18-14, Rekieta himself raised Franks. The prosecution was given time to file a response, and the defense time for a counter response. (I think originally they had to file by the same date, but stuff happened.). The judge then denied the dismissal under Franks outright. I presume that if the outcome would be a Franks hearing, the judge would decide that after reading both briefs.