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

[MunsterCheeseJr]

@Kosher Salt The court administrator. Well you are correct that the phone number does not go directly to the judge. But I am sure that if the Court Administrator gets a message for a judge, that the Court Administrator will usually pass it on.

And it is probably some flunky working in the court house phone bank answering the call. That message gets passed onto the Judge's clerk. So now you have 4 people who know all about this. Chugi3 is still stirring up some shit that isn't going to be completely ignored.

That is four people who may chat about it to other people involved in the system. Word will get back to the investigating police.

Aaron has been getting off light because he is forth right and honest with the cops and prosecutors. He doesn't play games. He just wants to get it over and done with. Everyone involved loves this, including the judge so he keeps on getting slaps on the wrist. Easy peasy.

Where as Nick insists on really twisting the screws on everyone involved. Attempting to drum up internet hate mobs. Slandering the police, prosecutors, lawyers on all sides, including the ones working FOR him. CPS workers. Judges. Nick doesn't give anyone a break. So why should they give Nick a break for creating so much extra work for him. The rehab plea deal was just sitting there on the table for him to pick up and take any time he wanted. But no. Nick has to fight it through unethical means. Nick is fucked.

Especially in a small population country. Poor choice.

 

[Maraschino]

If April asked for an attorney, and Nick was in fact the attorney she was referring to (as he says during the initial stream that he was representing April and Kayla as their attorney), wouldn't the fact that even though she asked for an attorney, the attorney she asked for couldn't ethically represent her as a result of it being a non-waivable conflict of interest have some sort of legal ramifications?

Asking for an attorney with the intent of said attorney being your codefendant at the time with the non-waivable conflict of interest and then trying to claim you have to dismiss everything she said because she asked for an attorney (who technically wouldn't be able to represent her) and then started speaking anyways (which we'd know the full extent of if we got the fucking bodycam footage) sounds like legal fuckery.

 

[Mind Goblins]

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.

I've seen the same thing, and this is where my initial confusion came from. I remembered that people had managed to talk their way out of their Miranda rights after initially asking for a lawyer, but forgot that it wasn't because the police kept interrogating them but instead because their request wasn't actually a ***request***. Pretty scummy on the cops' part, IMO, and I'm equal parts surprised and not surprised at all that this kind of skirting the rules happens.

 

[filthypenguin]

If April asked for an attorney, and Nick was in fact the attorney she was referring to (as he says during the initial stream that he was representing April and Kayla as their attorney), wouldn't the fact that even though she asked for an attorney, the attorney she asked for couldn't ethically represent her as a result of it being a non-waivable conflict of interest have some sort of legal ramifications?

Asking for an attorney with the intent of said attorney being your codefendant at the time with the non-waivable conflict of interest and then trying to claim you have to dismiss everything she said because she asked for an attorney (who technically wouldn't be able to represent her) and then started speaking anyways (which we'd know the full extent of if we got the fucking bodycam footage) sounds like legal fuckery.

Going the other way, if she asked for Nick specifically then she may have already had her attorney. Nick claimed he was her attorney during the arraignment.
"I want my attorney!"
"Who's your attorney?"
"That man right there!"
"Okay. Now, as I was saying..."

 

[Balldo's Gate]

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.

A timeline is cached on Google (search the URL of the profile with "cache:" in front). The user appears to be a deranged Patrick Melton/Nobody Likes Onions superfan. For those who don't know, Patrick Melton is the top Imholte/STMS detractor who is friends with Dick Masterson and Chris Vito Gesualdi.

Almost all of the cached tweets are either replies to Melton and relate to Imholte or Rekieta. A small minority are other things.

Rough count:
16 tweets/retweets referencing NLO/Imholte
2 retweets of dog pictures
1 retweet of a Joe Rogan quote
1 retweet of Chicago news

This is an example of the cached page. He was not only reporting Aaron Imholte to Eventbrite's Twitter customer support to try to get them to kick his events off their website, he appears to have also been encouraging people to complain about Eventbrite itself on the grounds that they platform Aaron Imholte.

 

[AnOminous]

I love how Nick was kvetching on stream about how “this was NOT a motion to suppress” and yet this was one of the first things out of his lawyer’s mouth.

I love how Nick tells absolutely outrageously stupid lies like this all the time. What possible advantage does he think he's getting from saying moronic shit like something entitled "motion to suppress" isn't a motion to suppress?

 

[Peace Through Power]

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.

Upon rereading this I see where the confusion came in. That site must be garbage.

The BotSentinel site is run by Christopher Bouzy. You're 100% correct that it's not reliable. It even has a thread

Christopher Bouzy is a terminally online Twitter user whose software, BotSentinel.com, flags "disruptive" accounts, where "disruptive" generally means "expressing an opinion that Mr. Bouzy personally does not agree with." He came to some level of prominence during the Amber Heard/Depp trial, taking the position that most of the anti-Heard sentiment was manufactured and being widely quoted to that effect in the media. Since then he's gotten in an autistic slapfight with minor LawTube streamer Nate the Lawyer, who has hired minor conservative hanger-on Ron Coleman to sue Bouzy, and has filed a brief that reads like a Kiwifarms thread.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

The BotSentinel site is run by Christopher Bouzy. You're 100% correct that it's not reliable. It even has a thread

I deleted that part of my post because it appears the below claim from that site may actually be accurate, at least in relation to the real celebrity (as opposed to e-celeb) stuff. I checked archived pages of this twitter account and it did indeed comment on things about R Kelly and Spears a couple years ago.

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.

I have no idea when or why it transitioned to an anti-STMS account almost exclusively.

 

[Vibralldo]

I deleted that part of my post because it appears the below claim from that site may actually be accurate, at least in relation to the real celebrity (as opposed to e-celeb) stuff. I checked archived pages of this twitter account and it did indeed comment on things about R Kelly and Spears a couple years ago.

View attachment 6353618



I have no idea when or why it transitioned to an anti-STMS account almost exclusively.

A lot of the people in the sphere that aren't kiwi farmers are parasocial wine moms that care too much about celebrities. They got into Nick because he covered celebrity trials, leading to them parasocially latch onto Nick as well.

 

[Napoleon III]

does he think

No he does not.

In all seriousness Nick is incapable of long term thinking. Part of it is also because he had a successful show for a while where he felt he could say anything and get away with a lot. Once you have it in your head that you can lie and you'll get away with it and you do get away with it for a while then it is really hard to go back to a situation where you have to tell the truth.

Makes me wonder what the interactions between his lawyer for this case and him are like. Does he actually tell his lawyer everything that he has done? Is his lawyer going along with what he says enthusiastically, or because Nick will pay for it?

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

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

You cannot invoke Miranda rights (5th amendment) to incrimination against others, only to prevent self-incrimination of yourself. April is required to testify and crossexamined (confrontation clause) if a statement from her is to be allowed.
Nick's argument was that this evidence could not be brought in at the Omnibussin because April is not a witness, if the state called her a witness she could (would she is another question) assert her 5th amendment right to remain silent and not incriminate herself.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

He’s still talking about his case on Twitter. The Judge needs to gag Rekieta for his own sake, but I don’t want him to for our entertainment.

 

[Terrifik]

I've seen the same thing, and this is where my initial confusion came from. I remembered that people had managed to talk their way out of their Miranda rights after initially asking for a lawyer, but forgot that it wasn't because the police kept interrogating them but instead because their request wasn't actually a ***request***. Pretty scummy on the cops' part, IMO, and I'm equal parts surprised and not surprised at all that this kind of skirting the rules happens.

My only guess was she was Miranda but, when cops searched house she tried explain her way out of Cocain & credit card . When she didn't have to and explaining expedited when gun was found.
TLDR: she didn't follow rule not to talk to cops after Miranda folded early due to knowing charge amount gun & cocain possession charge.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

My only guess was she was Miranda but, when cops searched house she tried explain her way out of Cocain & credit card . When she didn't have to and explaining expedited when gun was found.
TLDR: she didn't follow rule not to talk to cops after Miranda folded early due to knowing charge amount gun & cocain possession charge.

This is my guess as well. Everything else in Nick's filing was "bullshit on a not terribly good technicality" line of reasoning. So if (practically) everything else follows this pattern, there's no reason to believe the same is not true of April. She likely talked some to the cops, was given her Miranda, asked for a lawyer, but then kept yapping. And yapping. And yapping.

Boy, sure would be great if we could sort this out with that bodycam footage!

 

[SargonF00t]

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.

IANAL, but I thought Kurt's breakdown of why Rekieta's motions are likely to go nowhere, were really clear and without it necessarily being Kurt's goal, just shows how fucking dishonest Rekieta is with everything he has to say about his case.

I am not seeing anyone else do lawsplaining on this case, anywhere near the levels of Kurt.

 

[Atomic Ant]

I remembered that people had managed to talk their way out of their Miranda rights after initially asking for a lawyer

Youre allowed to waive your rights. Its not mandatory that you dont self incriminate. They call it a "Miranda Warning" because thats what it really is, the cops are required to remind you of your rights before they question you, so that you cant make the same legal argument that Miranda (rapist kidnapper) did. If you then go on to choose to waive those rights then thats about as much of a home run as it gets legally because again, you were just given a warning about your rights and went ahead and talked anyway so clearly you must have chosen to waive the rights.

Easy solution, if you ever hear a police read a Miranda warning to you, your vocabulary is now limited to the word "Lawyer". not legal advice btw ianal

 

[AnOminous]

If you then go on to choose to waive those rights then thats about as much of a home run as it gets legally because again, you were just given a warning about your rights and went ahead and talked anyway so clearly you must have chosen to waive the rights.

Or as Ron White put it: "I had the right to remain silent, but I lacked the ability."

 

[RudyRayMoore]

Video and some stills of Aprils first appearance posted in the other thread.

First Appearance in Zoom Hearing of APRIL DIANE IMHOLTE ANDERSON Court File Number: 34‐CR‐24‐487. At the end, someone did shout out to ask April about her tits, and she smirked. She is ordered to report to the Sheriff's office for booking photo and prints in the next 24 hours. ​

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/nicholas-robert-rekieta-rekieta-law-nickrekieta.53871/post-19206433

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

>April streams from the Balldo bunker for her Zoom court date

Nick really is blacker than Eric July with his ghetto retard shit with his side ho.

 

[MunsterCheeseJr]

Is it me, or does April really look visibly shaken when the judge announces that she will be in fact released under drug testing conditions?

My gut tells me that she feels she knows that going cold turkey will be difficult for herself.

Also, when the judge states "mood altering substances," does that include alcohol? It isn't clear to a layman like myself.