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

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

My main question to people more experienced than me is does Nick have anything to gain at all be talking about the case this much?

Yeah you kinda answered it. Nick's just an attention-seeking retard who cares more about optics than the law. Reality is gonna hit him real hard when it does, and it might be in cuffs at the rate he's going.

 

[Lian Xing]

His only real point is that Probable Cause is higher up on the difficulty of proving scale, than Kurt claims it is, and I am inclined to agree with him here, but everything else was just quibbling over minutiae.

Joe did collections (a jew doing collections will always be hilarious), and Kurt was a patent examiner professionally and SCOTUS autist hobbyist. I know they have to grift, but they really should leave these types of analyses to Nate. He's the only one who has played on all three teams of relevance: police, state's attorney, and criminal defense.

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

No damage legally from his current streams I think, but damaging him image, yes.

Joe did collections (a jew doing collections will always be hilarious), and Kurt was a patent examiner professionally and SCOTUS autist hobbyist. I know they have to grift, but they really should leave these types of analyses to Nate. He's the only one who has played on all three teams of relevance: police, state's attorney, and criminal defense.

Kurt is ok. He researches things and has a good memory and general interest in law. Joe? He got felted by Kurt and Nate quickly and it's because he doesn't know this aspect of law and also was too lazy to research.

Okay so today we saw the April hearing. It seems obvious balldo man had convinced April that she would get a dismissal today. Her mannerisms after showed this.

However she will get another shot at it and I think she has some good arguments.

A search warrant doesn't cover guests and their possessions. Therefore they need probable cause to search her and her items. This is particularly so when she is in the room with her items.

Balldo man got confused by this and stated the prosecutor lied by saying because the drugs were in the open a Minnesota statute allows to assume someone in the room possesses them. I did some research into this and it isn't really applicable. Namely Nick refers to elements of statute 152.028. Where it has a clause on if someone is in the room it allows for "permissive inference". As in, they possesss it. However, this statute is for the packaging and sale of drugs. April isn't charged under it.

April is charged under statute 152.025. Merely in the presence isn't enough and Nick should have known this since the prosecutor literally said "Mere presence isn't enough..." and so she obviously wasn't referencing a "permissive inference". That's quite the lawyer fail.

Instead the prosecutor is relying on the drugs being in plain view to get to probable cause.

This is a difficult argument as it is going to depend on how that vial presented. Was it obvious drug related? Any white powder visible?

It seems to me it is problematic to say you need probable cause to search April's stuff but then say a discreet vial is out in the open. So how that vial looked is important.

If they checked the vial thinking it was Nick's you can't then so easily say it's also April's and skip probable cause because it was under her cards.

So I'd be expecting her attorney to play around with these kind of arguments in the next motion to dismiss.

I have no idea on the case law and note the prosecutor seemed calm in asserting it, but April seems to have a better chance than Nick or Kayla at a dismissal.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

This is a difficult argument as it is going to depend on how that vial presented. Was it obvious drug related? Any white powder visible?

It was next to a snort tube, both of which were on top of the cards. From the summons:

The following items were located in the master bedroom near the nightstand:
Yellow snort tube – positive for cocaine
Black vial with white substance inside that field tested positive for cocaine and weighed 2.2 grams
(2) credit cards listed to IMHOLTE. The yellow snort tube and the black vial containing cocaine were found directly on top of the credit cards.

Tube and vial on top. Common accoutrements of cocaine use before you even get to looking at the name on the cards, so reasonable to test them in the first instance. Then, sitting on April's cards ties them to her. She was in the home/bedroom and her belongings were both in the open and underneath a drug tool that tested for coke and a vial containing it (whether or not the cards did). That is much more than "mere presence" in the home.

 

[AnOminous]

My main question to people more experienced than me is does Nick have anything to gain at all be talking about the case this much?

The only people who have anything to gain from Nick's continued self-destructive idiocy are us, the LawTubers monetizing his downfall, who he is giving free content, and the prosecutors who get all this free material full of adverse admissions and lies to impeach his credibility on cross if he's dumb enough to testify on his own behalf.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Tube and vial on top. Common accoutrements of cocaine use before you even get to looking at the name on the cards, so reasonable to test them in the first instance. Then, sitting on April's cards ties them to her. She was in the home/bedroom and her belongings were both in the open and underneath a drug tool that tested for coke and a vial containing it (whether or not the cards did). That is much more than "mere presence" in the home.

Nick insists that those items were not in plain view, but based on the statement of probable cause I really don't see how he's getting that conclusion. It says they were in the master bedroom near the nightstand; that sounds like they were out in plain view.

 

[Thomas Talus]

The only people who have anything to gain from Nick's continued self-destructive idiocy are us, the LawTubers monetizing his downfall, who he is giving free content, and the prosecutors who get all this free material full of adverse admissions and lies to impeach his credibility on cross if he's dumb enough to testify on his own behalf.

The first rule of your case is "do not talk about your case."

 

[Anasûrimbor Kellhus]

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

eric july felted then, nick confirmed to be too low IQ to be a white bread ass nigguh.

 

[AnOminous]

Nick insists that those items were not in plain view, but based on the statement of probable cause I really don't see how he's getting that conclusion. It says they were in the master bedroom near the nightstand; that sounds like they were out in plain view.

The report on execution of the search warrant says they literally saw it the instant they walked in the room.

How could it be more in plain sight without a literal blinking neon sign with an arrow on it pointing to it saying "LOOK COPS DRUGS HERE!"

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

It was next to a snort tube, both of which were on top of the cards. From the summons:


Tube and vial on top. Common accoutrements of cocaine use before you even get to looking at the name on the cards, so reasonable to test them in the first instance. Then, sitting on April's cards ties them to her. She was in the home/bedroom and her belongings were both in the open and underneath a drug tool that tested for coke and a vial containing it (whether or not the cards did). That is much more than "mere presence" in the home.

Yes, but was it branded snort tube? That's the cops characterization and could be attacked.

If they want to claim they are April's and they need probable cause to open and test that tube, a good lawyer is going to argue no visible signs on the snort thing and so they tested without probable cause.

Let's say you have a handbag. You don't get to search the handbag with April there and then claim your warrant covered it. You'd need probable cause. Saying you thought it was Kayla's is then a tricky probable cause for April.

I'm not saying it's an easy win for her, but it's better than anything balldo has to work with.

Nick insists that those items were not in plain view, but based on the statement of probable cause I really don't see how he's getting that conclusion. It says they were in the master bedroom near the nightstand; that sounds like they were out in plain view.

If only there was some bodycam to clear all this up.

If I leave MY wallet on a nightstand and I'm just visiting, you don't get to test the inside with a cocaine field test and then search all the pockets. You'd need to have the cocaine visible to kick it off. Enter bodycam, showing the cocaine visible or not.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

The first rule of your case is "do not talk about your case."

Disregard this post. The author is retarded, you should be ALWAYS talking about your case, specifically highlighting what you intend to do while also lying about how everyone in your opposition are illegally ruining your life by not accepting your lies.

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

Disregard this post. The author is retarded, you should be ALWAYS talking about your case, specifically highlighting what you intend to do while also lying about how everyone in your opposition are illegally ruining your life by not accepting your lies.

Nick doesn't want to stream about his case! He has to stream about his case!

So he can expose the LIES the POLICE and the GOVERNMENT and CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES and that BITCH SISTER-IN-LAW and those SCANDANAVIAN PRUDES FROM CHURCH and that PASTOR and HIS DAMN KIDS and those INCEL LOLI AVATAR KAREN FARMERS keep repeating about his life!

These LIES are getting in the way of Nick getting back to the FUN times at Hedonism II and the Gay90s and Pure Pleasure!

 

[John Andrews Stan]

My main question to people more experienced than me is does Nick have anything to gain at all be talking about the case this much?

Nick is a slave to his ego, and his ego has been suffering the disdain and mockery of Kiwi Farms for well over a year. Nick lacks self-control and restraint in the face of knowing he is seen as a degenerate retard by thousands of people who previously enjoyed his content.

Nick gave up any pretense of having free will a long time ago; Kiwi Farms calls the shots now. That’s why he can’t stop talking about his case, consequences be damned.

Personally, I was foolish enough to expect him to keep his counsel once he was out of jail. Which just goes to show how recently even his detractors were giving him unearned credit for sensibility.

 

[nym]

...people more experienced than me...

...There’s no doubt in my mind...

Maybe I just answered my own question lol.

I think the most relevant factor is that he's made this his business. Streaming, I mean. That's his paycheck.

The "smart lawyer stance" would be "don't say anything because anything you say can only hurt you", meaning "nothing you say publicly will help you in court, but if you say the wrong thing it could theoretically hurt you"; not sure if he's said such a wrong thing.

I'm sure he's doing the calculus of his daily paycheck vs his court case. And the gawkers get to watch the show. What's the problem?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

You don't get to search the handbag with April there and then claim your warrant covered it.

You literally can, though.

State v. Molnau, 904 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. 2017) - upholding defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance where police searched defendant's unattended purse during the execution of a search warrant.

 

[Anasûrimbor Kellhus]

Nick gave up any pretense of having free will a long time ago; Kiwi Farms calls the shots now. That’s why he can’t stop talking about his case, consequences be damned.

so basically while null is the world's nigger.... rekieta is the farm's nigger?

 

[Lian Xing]

if he's dumb enough to testify on his own behalf.

He is.

 

[Kosher Salt]

The "smart lawyer stance" would be "don't say anything because anything you say can only hurt you", meaning "nothing you say publicly will help you in court, but if you say the wrong thing it could theoretically hurt you"; not sure if he's said such a wrong thing.

It's not quite as simple as you could say the "wrong" thing. It's that if you say anything, the prosecution will have an opportunity to try to spin your statement as an admission of guilt, and they'd argue out of either side of their mouth to make you seem guilty no matter what you said.

 

[Terrifik]

My main question to people more experienced than me is does Nick have anything to gain at all be talking about the case this much?

narrtive control because there will be a movie & show / Documentry about this.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

narrtive control because there will be a movie & show / Documentry about this.

Aaron Imholte said he’s already been contacted by a “low-level producer” at Lifetime.