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

[LiquidKid]

He is.

“People of the jury, you just don’t get it. You have some weird misunderstanding and if you’d just let me talk I can explain things to you, but if not that’s fine and you can be wrong.”

Testifying for himself is completely in his M.O.

 

[Dr Naomi Hunter]

Side note: Null has been defamed for wanting film the court.

If Montegraph wins then I imagine @Null will get his pound of flesh.

The best thing @Null can do is keep leaving Nick on ‘read’. It’s produced the funniest results, Nick is acting like a jilted ex-lover and can’t let go.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

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.

And to felt Aaron, he just made a sworn statement to police about facts in his case (qover, signal, polycules, etc). His attorney must be ecstatic.

 

[Swole McPole]

You literally can, though.

As far as I'm aware, this has always been the case. Police raid a house on a drugs warrant, everybody is getting searched. If they weren't searching everybody, crack dealers could just have a 'visitor' come and hold the crack and the police couldn't search them because what? No probable cause to search the visitor?

Would that fly anywhere?

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

Okay so

As far as I'm aware, this has always been the case. Police raid a house on a drugs warrant, everybody is getting searched. If they weren't searching everybody, crack dealers could just have a 'visitor' come and hold the crack and the police couldn't search them because what? No probable cause to search the visitor?

Would that fly anywhere?

I mean, it isn't my opinion. I did some case research and it says you can't search guests unless you spell it out in the warrant. That is why the prosecutor is getting to probable cause at the hearing and didn't just say the search warrant covered it.

I suppose of you have a friend happening to be with you and you see cops slowly walking down your driveway and you are sat next to the bag of drugs you could ask him nicely to put it in his pocket and say don't worry, probably they don't have a warrant for you, lol, but... Doesn't seem like something you'd get a volunteer for.

There are other drug statutes though. They could charge under a distribution statute and then they don't need to worry about it. Everyone present is then presumed to be possessing. It's actually what Balldo Man got confused about on his live stream. He thought they had done that, cos he is a shitty lawyer.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I mean, it isn't my opinion. I did some case research and it says you can't search guests unless you spell it out in the warrant.

Turns out you can, though, in the situation you previously described. In some other situations you may yet be unable to search guest's belongings not included in the warrant. See, for example, State v. Wynne, 552 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. 1996)

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

Turns out you can, though, in the situation you previously described. In some other situations you may yet be unable to search guest's belongings not included in the warrant. See, for example, State v. Wynne, 552 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. 1996)

In that case it was his parents home and he was living there. He tried to claim he was a guest but the court rejected it and ruled his connection to the home and the fact he was living there at the time covered it.

So that's why I said Nick & April need to be careful with their little stunt of from his studio joining a court proceeding. At the moment the prosecutor is going the probable cause route but she may decide April was living there based on the amount of time she was there in say the 9 months prior and her continued connection. If that happens she could be accused of copossession of it all.

 

[Kosher Salt]

So that's why I said Nick & April need to be careful with their little stunt of from his studio joining a court proceeding. At the moment the prosecutor is going the probable cause route but she may decide April was living there based on the amount of time she was there in say the 9 months prior and her continued connection. If that happens she could be accused of copossession of it all.

It's obvious that she's going to be there in the daytime with frequency, since she's their nanny. The question is where she typically sleeps.

If the cops wanted to prove that she was living there it'd be trivially easy to just stake it out and see whether she regularly stays overnight. Hell, they probably have enough probable cause to get a warrant to put a hidden GPS tracker on her vehicle if they so desired.

 

[Swole McPole]

They could charge under a distribution statute and then they don't need to worry about it. Everyone present is then presumed to be possessing. It's actually what Balldo Man got confused about on his live stream. He thought they had done that, cos he is a shitty lawyer.

OK, that explains why you'll generally see footage of everyone getting searched in US raids. They're obviously raids around distribution. I don't think anyone gets there homes raided for simple possession cases here in the UK any more, but they used to be common and the rules are very different. Here, they get a warrant to search the premises. If you're on the premises, you're getting searched. Pockets, bags and a pat down. I think if they wanted to strip search you, they'd have to arrest you and do it down at the station.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

It's obvious that she's going to be there in the daytime with frequency, since she's their nanny. The question is where she typically sleeps.

If the cops wanted to prove that she was living there it'd be trivially easy to just stake it out and see whether she regularly stays overnight. Hell, they probably have enough probable cause to get a warrant to put a hidden GPS tracker on her vehicle if they so desired.

Alternatively, get an affidavit from her ex-husband testifying that she does not live at his address like she claimed on her filings.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

OK, that explains why you'll generally see footage of everyone getting searched in US raids. They're obviously raids around distribution. I don't think anyone gets there homes raided for simple possession cases here in the UK any more, but they used to be common and the rules are very different. Here, they get a warrant to search the premises. If you're on the premises, you're getting searched. Pockets, bags and a pat down. I think if they wanted to strip search you, they'd have to arrest you and do it down at the station.

A warrant for premises is actually an exmaple of the 'general warrants' that Nick/Barnes railed against as UHNCONSHTITOOSHUNUL!

As a non-attorney, I find it laughable in comparison. Nick's warrant was a lot more specific.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Alternatively, get an affidavit from her ex-husband testifying that she does not live at his address like she claimed on her filings.

First of all, an affidavit, despite being sworn, is an out-of-court statement and thus hearsay. Affidavits can serve as the basis for probable cause, but getting them introduced at trial as evidence is problematic because there is no way for an affidavit to be cross-examined.

For example, cops routinely write affidavits that go in a search warrant application, but at the trial they have to actually call the cop on the witness stand. They'd only be able to use the prior affidavit if there's an applicable exception to hearsay, such as a prior inconsistent statement for rebuttal purposes.

But regardless of all that, to charge her with constructive possession of the rest of the cocaine found in Nick's house, they don't need to prove that she moved out of her old address; they need to prove she moved in to the house with all the cocaine. If she lived there, there's a stronger argument that she had access to the cocaine that was found outside direct proximity to her immediate belongings.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

First of all, an affidavit, despite being sworn, is an out-of-court statement and thus hearsay. Affidavits can serve as the basis for probable cause, but getting them introduced at trial as evidence is problematic because there is no way for an affidavit to be cross-examined.

For example, cops routinely write affidavits that go in a search warrant application, but at the trial they have to actually call the cop on the witness stand. They'd only be able to use the prior affidavit if there's an applicable exception to hearsay, such as a prior inconsistent statement for rebuttal purposes.

But regardless of all that, to charge her with constructive possession of the rest of the cocaine found in Nick's house, they don't need to prove that she moved out of her old address; they need to prove she moved in to the house with all the cocaine. If she lived there, there's a stronger argument that she had access to the cocaine that was found outside direct proximity to her immediate belongings.

Nick, take note of this. As an unqualified individual, I was wrong about a legal matter. Instead of shitting myself and calling this person a vagina liquor loving retard, I'm going to acknowledge they are correct and avoid this mistake in the future.

It's that easy to not be a fucking dick head.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

State's brief is up:
Edit to add images.
Edit: Oh man:

The Defense argues that the clip on the powerpoint was manipulated but as you can see from the full video stream, the clip is taken directly from the video at approximately 2 hours, 50 minutes and 40 seconds into the video. The only editing is to cut the short clip from the entire video. The other brand on the clip may have been from the application used to make the clip. The full video shows that it is entirely from the Defendant’s channel. There are no other labels or markings to indicate that the video is not authentic. Detective Pomplun informed the issuing magistrate that the video was no longer publicly available but that he was able to view the entire video stream. The entire video is consistent with the statement made by Imholte. Detective Pomplun used his own training as a drug recognition expert to describe the Defendant’s behavior and how that is consistent with use of a controlled substance.

Detective Pomplun did not misrepresent the information. He viewed the entire video. This was disclosed to the Defendant. The Defendant had this video for over a month prior to the omnibus hearing. Instead of being candid with the court, the Defendant implied that the only video that was disclosed to them was the short clip. This has the appearance of an intentional misrepresentation to the court of what information has been disclosed.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

State's brief is up:
Edit to add images.
Edit: Oh man:

Ah, the fresh breeze of sanity.

 

[Mind Goblins]

If the cops wanted to prove that she was living there it'd be trivially easy to just stake it out and see whether she regularly stays overnight. Hell, they probably have enough probable cause to get a warrant to put a hidden GPS tracker on her vehicle if they so desired.

Why bother with all that when you could just subpoena the GPS data off of her phone? Unless she has a burner (possible, but unlikely) that would be able to give an entire history of when she was at the house.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

Nick is fucked.

 

[Pentamidine]

The response doesn't even address the "They didn't watch my video they watched a COPY of my video! POMPLUN LIED!" argument. Did they not follow it or was it not even worth addressing?

 

[Obnoxious Asshole]

Sounds like the party has just ended for the Qover.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

Detective Pomplun did not misrepresent the information. He viewed the entire video. This was disclosed to the Defendant. The Defendant had this video for over a month prior to the omnibus hearing. Instead of being candid with the court, the Defendant implied that the only video that was disclosed to them was the short clip. This has the appearance of an intentional misrepresentation to the court of what information has been disclosed.

Oh no Nick, what're you gonna do? Spin up more bullshit? Surely if you outright say the court is corrupt and are trying to frame you, everything will be alright.