State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Rekieta, Kayla Rekieta, April Imholte

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?


  • Total voters
    1,268
  • Poll closed .
so the detective could not have known that the 'cocaine' he saw on Nick's nose was was 100% real of not.
The problem Nick has is that his argument skips out on all of the following:
Approximately 2:46 into the video, Nicholas leaves to go to use the restroom. When he returns at 2:50:40, he appears to be making an excited look and has a white powdery substance on his nose. Your Affiant believes his behavior is indicative of Central Nervous System Stimulants. Your Affiant believes based on training and experience as well as the behavior of Nicholas, that he ingested this white powdery substance through his nasal cavity while off camera.

Your Affiant knows through training and experience that ingesting controlled substances through a nasal cavity is common amongst controlled substance users and is often referred to as "snorting". Your Affiant also noted that throughout the video, Nicholas is so under the influence of a substance to the point he has to close one eye to read his screen, rambles, and slurs his speech. Nicholas would obviously not be able to care for his children in this state of intoxication.

It should be noted that Your Affiant was a Drug Recognition evaluator for several years and based on Your Affiants training and experience, the behavior of Nicholas in his video blog indicates Poly substance use, meaning it is believed he was ingesting more than one substance based on his behavior, being both excited and nearly passing out. This can be consistant behavior of using both CNS Stimulants and Depressants.
Even if you axe out the cocaine-on-his-nose part, the vast majority of the warrant here is focused on Nick's behavior. Unless Nick's argument about video compression and encoding can explain away all of Nick's druggie behavior for multiple hours on that stream, his argument is dumb.
 
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.).
FWIW, and I'm no legal expert, the Franks stuff was not directly brought up at the omnibus, the primary contention they seem to be rolling with currently is that edits made to the video (by Steel Toe(?)) fundamentally change the evidence to imply things that the unedited video would not, and that the warrant was issued in relation to that edited video. Forgive me if that is the 'Franks' situation, I actually know very little about Rekita, in all honesty.
 
The problem Nick has is that his argument skips out on all of the following:

Even if you axe out the cocaine-on-his-nose part, the vast majority of the warrant here is focused on Nick's behavior. Unless Nick's argument about video compression and encoding can explain away all of Nick's druggie behavior for multiple hours on that stream, his argument is dumb.
To be perfectly fair, if you turbo compress a video enough, it does make you look like you're slurring your words and getting a blowjob under the table from your coke whore. Video encoding can be weird like that.
 
The problem Nick has is that his argument skips out on all of the following:

Even if you axe out the cocaine-on-his-nose part, the vast majority of the warrant here is focused on Nick's behavior. Unless Nick's argument about video compression and encoding can explain away all of Nick's druggie behavior for multiple hours on that stream, his argument is dumb.

Nick's argument seems to be a mix of mis-representations that Aaron was the sole source of evidence, the warrant was for child abuse, and because the video he watched was DIFFERENT, Nick should win.

I just want the to get Pomplun on the stand, and the judge to just apply common sense to cut through his bullshittery Chewbacca defence.
 
Forgive me if that is the 'Franks' situation, I actually know very little about Rekita, in all honesty.
That's okay. Part of it is Franks, but that would have been background information that all the lawyers already knew. It is called out explicitly in Nick / White's motion because filings are supposed to be spelled out like that. It is specifically, "the guy would filed the warrant lied to the judge to get it, so void the warrant and pretend the search didn't happen".

(I was tagging you because the omnibus hearing thread is locked but I still wanted to ensure you got credit for your / the group's reporting. I appreciate y'all taking the time and effort.)
 
mix of mis-representations
It really is a nest of misrepresentations. I hope the judge doesn't buy it. It's unfortunate we don't have transcripts of the last hearing. Nick's motion is so terrible that I'm curious what his attorney actually said and argued to the judge, what questions the judge had, etc. I don't trust Nick's interpretation of reality at all.
 
It really is a nest of misrepresentations. I hope the judge doesn't buy it. It's unfortunate we don't have transcripts of the last hearing. Nick's motion is so terrible that I'm curious what his attorney actually said and argued to the judge, what questions the judge had, etc. I don't trust Nick's interpretation of reality at all.
The judge had very little to say outside of basic court direction, given the nature of the main issues, the source of the video and the reliance on April's testimony for elements of the bodycam, there won't be a lot going on until the prosecution submits it's written response, I assume the delay in response is to interview the warranting offer about the first, and the second is up to turning April which seems unlikely but will probably be largely irrelevant.
 
It really is a nest of misrepresentations. I hope the judge doesn't buy it. It's unfortunate we don't have transcripts of the last hearing. Nick's motion is so terrible that I'm curious what his attorney actually said and argued to the judge, what questions the judge had, etc. I don't trust Nick's interpretation of reality at all.

I suspect Nick's brief and the state's response (or vice versa) will be more illuminating on the logic (or non-logic) being employed, then the judge will rule on that. Very anti-climactic paperwork unless there is a hearing at some point.
 
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).
We don't have a transcript so I don't know. My possibly from the hip take is the next hearing actually will be a Franks hearing. Having a hearing just to decide whether to have a hearing is a bit convoluted.
FWIW, and I'm no legal expert, the Franks stuff was not directly brought up at the omnibus, the primary contention they seem to be rolling with currently is that edits made to the video (by Steel Toe(?)) fundamentally change the evidence to imply things that the unedited video would not, and that the warrant was issued in relation to that edited video. Forgive me if that is the 'Franks' situation, I actually know very little about Rekita, in all honesty.
My opinion is the court took Frank White's unhinged ramblings as a request for a Franks hearing and that's what's coming next. That and whatever residual issues remain.
 
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.
Glad to know I can puzzle through bullshit regardless of the form it takes.

I don't think the judge has any reason to throw out the warrant, especially if he figures out the Nick is misrepresenting just about everything. And in theory, if he does throw the warrant out, doesn't that mean Kayla and April are also home free?

At the end of it though, the warrant was issued because of 1: a mandatory reporter reporting drugs and child neglect being a possibility, 2: a private citizen who, while he has reason to hate Nick, backed up the drug claims and 3: a video where Nick acted like a coke head, powder or no. I have mixed feelings about cops but I think even a full on ACAB lunatic would have a hard time disagreeing with issuing a warrant. Which means that everything Nick is putting forth in his filing is completely fucking irrelevant because he's not attacking any of what I just mentioned, except maybe Aaron's involvement.

I apologize for coming to the same conclusion as everyone else of "just take the fucking plea deal, you can't get this thrown out" but at least now I understand why we all got there.
 
I apologize for coming to the same conclusion as everyone else of "just take the fucking plea deal, you can't get this thrown out" but at least now I understand why we all got there.

I thibk it important to note two things:

1) While most have come to this conclusion, the eordl of actual legal practice is a wild and wooly one. Nick could very well prevail on this tack. The discussion here and opinions expressed are what 'generally should occur', but no guarantee of result. However, when prognosticating or propounded a general policy, thr general (as it is often the majority) case is the one that should be considered. This leads into my second point.

2) Regardless of Nick's outcome, he will still sperg about it in one manner orother because narcissists, as a rule, consider themselves to be the exception to the general rules. Nick and Juju will never accept the outcome for what it truly is, nor will they be convinced otherwise--no matter the number of infallible proofs presented. Do not get too worked up over it.

Enjoy the show for what it is. All ther world's a stage, and the cows merely players. They have their sperg-outs and their tard rages, and one cow, in their lifetime, may produce much milk--to adapt a phrase from the Bard.
 
I don't even know how much they are arguing the video is different so much that THE COP LIED so the whole thing has to be thrown out. Not that what Nick says on Twitter matters much to the Franks hearing I believe, but that is what Nick was saying on twitter the whole time, was that THE COP LIED so the whole video/warrant has to be thrown out. It doesn't even matter how big the 'lie' is, the fact that THERE WAS A LIE means Nick wins (somehow).
 
Transcript of the omnibus hearing is out

Edit* In addition, April has a lawyer (Thomas C. Gallagher) and has filed a motion to dismiss
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Transcript of the omnibus hearing is out
Screenshot_20240826_152053_Drive.jpg
 
Transcript of the omnibus hearing is out

Edit* In addition, April has a lawyer (Thomas C. Gallagher) and has filed a motion to dismiss
If everything Crackeita said about April getting interrogated after requesting a lawyer is true, I imagine she has a decent chance at a dismissal (even if she doesn't make a deal to drop the charges). If only there were some bodycam footage we could see that would clear things up.
 
TBH if everything Crackeita said about April getting interrogated after requesting a lawyer is true, I imagine she has a decent chance at a dismissal (even if she doesn't make a deal to drop the charges). If only there were some bodycam footage we could see that would clear things up.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think this motion to dismiss has problems. She may get out because of the Miranda issue, but in this motion, the lawyer just straight up lies about the complaint.
1724704457216.png
From the complaint:
1724704477860.png
 
Here we get the theory of the case in regards to the video:

It was from a different place, not original, and had things added. If the judge knew thatn she would not have signed off. It was not thr best evidence, and the officer did not tell her about all these caveats.

Screenshot_20240826_152619_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
Screenshot_20240826_153132_Adobe Acrobat.jpg

The guns were illegally seized becuase there was no connection between them and the drug crime.

Barnes used almost this exact language. I wonder if White is just a bird of a feather or a puppet.

Screenshot_20240826_152738_Adobe Acrobat.jpg

The judge inteprets the rambling as a request for a Frank's hearing.

Screenshot_20240826_152944_Adobe Acrobat.jpg

There was a PowerPoint created by the police about Nick. This seems ro indicate some ongoing collection of information and documentation.

Screenshot_20240826_153045_Adobe Acrobat.jpg

The judge knows the distinction between initial admissibility and trial admissibility. This may not work out for Nick.

Screenshot_20240826_153329_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
 
I apologize for coming to the same conclusion as everyone else of "just take the fucking plea deal, you can't get this thrown out" but at least now I understand why we all got there.
I actually don't take that position. I would never fault any defendant for at least trying to knock out the search warrant, exclude the evidence, or at least present the possibility of it happening.

I am more critical of the methodology of doing it. This shit White filed is pathetic and he only eked out a minor procedural delay based on arguments the trial court practically had to make on his behalf since his brief was utter dogshit trash and made weak attempts, in a sentence or two, to make arguments anyone but an imbecile would have spent pages on.
The guns were illegally seized becuase there was no connection between them and the drug crime.
This is literal retard shit. If they had searched the house looking for drugs, and found only legally owned guns, it would indeed be improper to launch criminal charges based on that. However, having found drugs, the presence of guns was then an additional crime. Since Nick, being an absolutely retarded cocksucker, had them just lying around in his master bedroom full of drugs, a number of doctrines come into play.

One is plain sight. They were just lying around everywhere. Another is inevitable discovery. Once drugs were found, obviously the search would continue to find more. There is no way such a search would not have turned up the guns too.

And since guns+drugs+kids=an entirely NEW crime, this was just going to happen.

Nick is retarded. His whole defense is retarded. Robert Barnes is retarded. The Barneswalker is retarded. Viva is a retarded Canadian Jew.
The judge knows the distinction between initial admissibility and trial admissibility. This may not work out for Nick.
And for people who don't know, when the judge said "motion in limine" he was referring to a specific pre-trial motion to exclude certain evidence at trial. Nick tried to make an argument relevant to such a motion toward the search warrant, which obviously would not succeed.

Since the judge is not a coke-addled retard like Nick, he recognized the difference.

Now, Nick probably actually SHOULD file a motion in limine and would be retarded not to after the judge all but told him how to do it (like judges have told Russell Greer things he should do like actually serving defendants). But the judge was not bamboozled by trying to sneak in arguments like this before their time and in a context (probable cause) where they were completely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Back