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

[MunsterCheeseJr]

No. The tweet was a retweet. Presumably the thumbnail came from a different retweet.

Cached versions of his page show that he often retweets Chicago news, meaning it's probably someone from the area though.

Chugi is fairly unique.

Here is a woman who also posts in /r/chicago who named her pet dog "chugi". Female avatar.

https://www.reddit.com/r/akita/comments/14qp20i/rip_chugi_aka_sugarbean_sugarbear_sweety_pants_i/

Her own userid on reddit is Chuugy with two "u"s, and a y.

https://archive.ph/8dMp2

https://www.reddit.com/user/chuugy14/

The slang "Cheugy" refers to someone who is slightly out of fashion. "Mom Jeans."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheugy

What are the odds that she might be one of Nick's wine mom fans. Are there any followers on Nick's locals that has some variation of "chugi*" or "chuugy*"?

Edit: Also "Chugi" seems to be an asian word. Japanese for congratulations. This would explain why the english spelling is so varied. This also explains her love for Akita dogs. I say there are bonus points if this woman turns out to be Asian, or has some weeb level of facination with Asian culture. Might be Japanese. Of course I am sure there are variations of the "chugi" word scattered around most of Asia.

 

[Captain Manning]

Barnes is saying that just being present is not enough of a nexus that connects the guns to the initial charge for the warrant because if the police can just take anything 'in plain view' it makes the warrant a 'general warrant' that is expressly forbidden by the 4th Amendment. 'Plain View' doctrine is overbroad, in his view.

Barnes also famously argued bail is unconstitutional, when the Eighth Amendment clearly prohibits excessive bail.

That's like arguing rioting is a protected First Amendment activity, by ignoring that the First Amendment only and clearly protects the rights of people to peaceably assemble.

Now that is a fair ideological stance, but it is patently NOT how things currently work or aligned with current American jurisprudence. Both Nick and Barnes start by creating their own moral high ground upon which to pontificate, then dictate how things *should* be and use that as a bully club to rail against the current status quo. This is how they manage to elide inconvenient facts.

Correct. Barnes preaches the Constitution he wishes he lived under. Not the one we actually do.

I wouldn't mind it so much if he made that clear, but he doesn't. And the stupid/gullible walk away with the wrong impression of Constitutional law.

Similarly, so much of the arguments of other orbiters like Juju hinge on the idea that drugs ought to be legal. Well, guess what? They're not. If you really feel that way, take it up with the legislative branch.

 

[Mind Goblins]

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.

Based on my understanding of Miranda laws, April isn't getting anything dismissed. As long as she was informed of her rights before being interviewed everything that she said gets in, whether she asked for a lawyer at one point or not. That's why the line every defense lawyer tells you isn't just "ask for a lawyer," but "ask for a lawyer and shut the fuck up." If you ask, they have to provide, but they have no obligation to not ask questions in the meantime.

Edit: Wrong on that last point, so I guess it depends on whether the cops continued to question her after the attorney request. That said, if she offered anything without questioning (ex. "I want my lawyer, he'll know how to explain all the coke in my system") I'm reasonably confident that's still admissible.

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

Based on my understanding of Miranda laws, April isn't getting anything dismissed. As long as she was informed of her rights before being interviewed everything that she said gets in, whether she asked for a lawyer at one point or not. That's why the line every defense lawyer tells you isn't just "ask for a lawyer," but "ask for a lawyer and shut the fuck up." If you ask, they have to provide, but they have no obligation to not ask questions in the meantime.

This isn't quite right.

If someone says they want a lawyer, the cops need to stop the questioning. However, it the person volunteers to start speaking again, without prompting, that is generally ruled as admissible.

However if she started speaking after questions/prompts/coercion by the cops, it will most likely be ruled as inadmissible.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Lunacy. You can’t be in possession of firearms and a user of controlled substances. You can’t buy firearms and admit on the 4473 you have controlled substances. Rekieta should be glad this doesn’t go up to the Federal level.

I need to point out this is being challenged in the 5th circuit COA. US v. Daniels 1:22-CR-58-1.
It will not affect his case if he gets the felony possession charge, if it gets struck by SCOTUS.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) bars an individual from possessing a firearm if he is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. Patrick Daniels is one such “unlawful user”—he admitted to smoking marihuana multiple days per month. But the government presented no evidence that he was intoxicated at the time of arrest, nor did it identify when he last had used marihuana. Still, based on his confession to regular usage, a jury convicted Daniels of violating § 922(g)(3).

USC 922 (g)(3)

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

MN Statue 624.713 (9) (viii)

is disqualified from possessing a firearm under United States Code, title 18, section 922(g)(8 ) or (9), as amended through March 1, 2014;

Edit: Wrong on that last point, so I guess it depends on whether the cops continued to question her after the attorney request. That said, if she offered anything without questioning (ex. "I want my lawyer, he'll know how to explain all the coke in my system") I'm reasonably confident that's still admissible.

Her statement was pretty unequivocal, so the statement is likely inadmissible as it stands from the transcript unless somehow they convince the judge that she somehow waived or voluntarily made the statement. We don't have bodycam but the transcript shows the other cop asking her a question and her answering, so it remains a "to be determined" issue.

A tactic I have seen that is scummy but legal is they get the cops to talk shit about you "Oh X did something blah blah and is a murder because of it", if you say anything like "I didn't do that!" that is admissible since they're technically not interrogating you, and thus the statement was "voluntary" and not coerced.

 

[Fresh Meat]

Version of the tweet from webcache.googleusercontent.com [Google Web Cache]
Archive

 

[SaltyFanta]

It’s amused me for over a year that Nick had ended up with the low IQ fans he deserves. But even I didn’t foresee how much catering to literal retards would end up biting him in the ass.

Lol. Lmao even.

I'm not shocked, seems like the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Nick himself has a habit of "confronting" judges outside the courtroom.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

I'm not shocked, seems like the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Nick himself has a habit of "confronting" judges outside the courtroom.

I don’t think anyone is shocked. The sheer pottery of it all is just glorious.

And yes, Nick has always been a lolcow. He just needed to be emboldened by YouTube success to start showing us exactly how fucked in the head he is. Didn’t take long.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

If someone says they want a lawyer, the cops need to stop the questioning.

That is also not right. The distinction revolves on whether the subsequent questions were merely another attempt (admissible) or whether it was an interrogation (without pause and with the same questions) that forced a confession (inadmissible). The demeanor of the investigators is also a factor as to the latter point. Existence, or lack thereof, of coercion is also a factor. See, broadly, State v. Ezeka, 946 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 2020)

 

[Free Dick Pills]

View attachment 6352278
Version of the tweet from webcache.googleusercontent.com [Google Web Cache]
Archive

Has to be a ralph sock

 

[Long-time Lurker]

Kayla said she was the live in nanny and so isn't just visiting . I'm just curious if she said that before or after being given her miranda rights? If after I imagine that would be a problem to use as evidence.

Even with the leaked "supplement 1" from KCSO we do not technically know. In Pomplun's order of events:

1. Sweep arrives
2. Detective Oakleaf speaks to Kayla, and Kayla requests an attorney.
3. Pomplun interviews Nick in jail
4. Sweep tells Pomplun that Kayla said April was the live-in nanny

I would expect that Oakleaf Mirandized Kayla but we do not have her supplement. Sweep could have spoken to Kayla before or after Oakleaf.

Kayla spoke to Sweep. Sweep asked if Bitzan, the former nanny, could help. Kayla said that April was the live-in nanny now.

Sweep was not a state interrogator facially or by her actions. Sweep's purpose was to resolve an emergency, which was the placement of Nick and Kayla's children onto a law enforcement hold. I suspect Kayla's statements are admissible. I'm not sure how I feel about that ethically though.

What are the odds that she might be one of Nick's wine mom fans. Are there any followers on Nick's locals that has some variation of "chugi*" or "chuugy*"?

Paging Locals expert @Himedall All-seeing Waifu !

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I'm like 99% sure it was this guy, who deleted the tweet and locked his account:

View attachment 6351666

You can still see some of it on Google:

View attachment 6351640

There's two reactions to his deleted tweet seemingly confirming it:

View attachment 6351669
Archive

View attachment 6351681
Archive

EDIT: credit to @BannedStFoogie on Twitter who got a screenshot before it was deleted:

View attachment 6351733
Archive

Why do Nick's fans want to commit Federal crimes? I find it very WEIRD that they would do that. I would never do that. Maybe something Nick said inspired then to do it? I don't know...

Nick, prove to me that you DIDN'T incite your fans to do this! I jabent seen any evidence that you AREN'T someone who would do this.

For those not in on the joke, Nick said much the same about his claims that Montegraph was paedo.

And it will be orange in color.

His and Kayla's favourite colours are orange and blue. Local county jumpsuits are blue (as seen in the arraignment) and federal are orange. Match made in heaven!

The date the cop gives is also a lie, cos technically the stream started on the 20th, not the 21st. Nick doesn't establish how the cop would have known any of these details, but still insists on calling it a lie.

Nick has a 2-step deception here: 1) Twist ignorance into malice then 2) Insist that the State has a higher burden of proof, so assumptions under #1 are all valid otherwise it is tyranny!

The gun argument, which weirdly seems to be where the lawyer spent most of his time, seems a non starter. The cops can search for drugs anywhere. If they find guns they are allowed to seize them. I imagine at trial Nick is going to return to his claim that since the state can't prove he was using cocaine, the gun charge should be dismissed. Imagine trying to argue to a jury you weren't using the 26 grams of cocaine he had. Not just that, but there would be no reason to use that video to prove possession and so trying to make the argument needlessly brings in the video showing Nick at his worst.

Correction: The police warrant has to specifically describe where they are to search and the effects to be seized. This warrant seems to conform to that standard was met for the drugs.

The point is that they CANNOT search 'anywhere', and they complied with the warrant. You can argue that warrants like this, in general, are overbroad (The Barnes position), but that is a utopian ideal that has yet to be accepted in judicial practice or law--so it has no weight.

Same for the guns. Police seize guns in drug raids all the time. Until that is specifically outlawed, they will keep doing it and it will be upheld by the trial court.

It’s amused me for over a year that Nick had ended up with the low IQ fans he deserves. But even I didn’t foresee how much catering to literal retards would end up biting him in the ass.

Lol. Lmao even.

Let’s be honest. We’re gonna get blamed for it. Like we always do.

Things like this (if true) are the best examples of why touching cows is not only bad practice, illegal, or unwise, but also entirely unnecessary. Some retard will do something funny without any prompting from us evil farmers.

Paging Locals expert @Himedall All-seeing Waifu !

I need to CTRL-F through my log spreadsheets. I am fairly sure I remember a 'Cheugy' of some sort. I may be conflating it with 'Chechunia' though...

 

[Kopasea]

And if Nick was stupid enough to hint all the way around to Ethan that this was something that should be done, without saying it directly, I hope Nick gets his shit properly shoved in for this. Nick is an absolute moron.

No word on where this was posted, or the userid of the person who posted it. Telegram? Video? Stream?

If Nick did do this, it wouldn't be the first time.

When Nick was dealing with local lawyer Schneider who is representing Montagraph, Nick would routinely call out Schneider as a faggot and then proceed to name off his firm, all but stating the address. Schneider's law firm then started receiving 1 * Google reviews directly referencing the defamation lawsuit. I do think Nick is conniving enough to want that to happen while maintaining an air of "I didn't tell anyone to do that... what they do with this information is up to them."

 

[Balldo's Gate]

I need to CTRL-F through my log spreadsheets. I am fairly sure I remember a 'Cheugy' of some sort. I may be conflating it with 'Chechunia' though...

You're probably thinking of this person who Rekieta has argued with on Twitter recently.



Not the same person. For one, Dayton, OH is pretty far from Chicago...

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Paging Locals expert @Himedall All-seeing Waifu !

EDIT: Upon inspection it looks like Evie Warner is a (literal) retarded woman who makes films and hates Nick.



Given her retard status, she has never really left the Dayton area.

While the @chugi3 account on Twitter did have a suspended YouTube account in 2019, there is no more direct link to the above retard.

Be aware of this tenuous link
___________________________________

After a quick inspection, this is what I found:

This person could be Evie Marie Warner--A LawTube obsessed wine mom.

If you look at BotSentinel's report on the account @chugi3, the links from tweets it scrapes from the account are to RKelly trial coverage, Brittney Spears Conservatorship topics, NatetheLawyer and Christophey Bouzy, and the like.

Looking back into LOCALS logs, there is no account with any variation of 'Chugi' or the like, but there was this YouTube and Rumble show:







Archive

The show has a Twitter.



Archive

From this we get a name to check on LOCALS, and this pops up.



She also has a SubStack where she tracked the early documents of the case



Archive

She seems to have a personal YT account here


While I cannot conform a direct link to the Twitter profile, they seem to run in the same interest circles of LawTube and Nick Rekieta...

 

[Balldo's Gate]

This person could be Evie Marie Warner--A LawTube obsessed wine mom.

This is beyond stupid. It's not the same person.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Kurt doesn't like the odds of a Franks hearing for ol' Balldoman. Kurt doesn't see a massive contradiction (just word games), and Franks hearings are generally rare and for egregious abuses.

 

[Third World Aristocrat]

Her statement was pretty unequivocal, so the statement is likely inadmissible as it stands from the transcript unless somehow they convince the judge that she somehow waived or voluntarily made the statement.

Is that true? I thought Nick couldn't invoke the Miranda rights of a third party to protect himself.
I was under the impression that the issue with her statements was related to the right to confront one's accuser.

IANAL

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

That is also not right. The distinction revolves on whether the subsequent questions were merely another attempt (admissible) or whether it was an interrogation (without pause and with the same questions) that forced a confession (inadmissible). The demeanor of the investigators is also a factor as to the latter point. Existence, or lack thereof, of coercion is also a factor. See, broadly, State v. Ezeka, 946 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 2020)

I’ve seen several EWU interrogations where this worked out for the police. The suspect will say something wishy-washy like “I think I should talk to a lawyer” but continue to answer questions and eventually confess to the murder.

My understanding is you need to firmly state that you won’t answer any additional questions until you’ve talked to a lawyer and then remain silent after that. If April was wishy-washy herself (something the bodycam footage could help answer), Rekieta’s motion could be a long-shot.

 

[Kosher Salt]

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.

From the complaint:

The quote that you credit as coming from the complaint isn't found anywhere in it. I think it's from one of the police reports.

edit: actually never mind, I didn't have the complaint against April. You're correct, there is that 6th mention is near the end of the 2nd and a half page of the statement of probable cause.

EDIT: credit to @BannedStFoogie on Twitter who got a screenshot before it was deleted:


Archive

Obviously telling people to bother the judge (or anyone else involved in the case) is stupid, but that wasn't the judge's phone number. It's the public listing for the Kandiyohi Court Administrator. It's the first thing that shows up if you Google "kandiyohi county courthouse".