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

[DHugo]

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?

Page 6, it says the detective downloaded the video from Rekieta's channel.

 

[Pentamidine]

Page 6, it says the detective downloaded the video from Rekieta's channel.

Yeah but there's no way that's true. It's watermarked with Cog's logo and Pomplun reports the title as that title of Cog's reupload.

The other brand on the clip may have been from the application used to make the clip.

From Nick's motion to suppress:

More likely, Applicant’s assertion that he was “able to review the video…” did not necessitate serving a warrant on Alphabet, Inc., because Applicant reviewed an edited version titled “Nick Rekieta’s Drunk Stream After Losing His Appeal.” In Discovery, the state produced a PowerPoint presentation with, what purports to be, a clip of Defendant’s May 21, 2022 live stream video,18 as well as an image purporting to be a screenshot of the same.19 Not only is this video titled differently, it came from a different YouTube channel (Backwards Internet) and was uploaded at a different date/time from Defendant’s original. It also contains a watermark not present in the original video.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

Page 6, it says the detective downloaded the video from Rekieta's channel.

I've seen the future guys. Nicks next filing will be this, word for word.

"Motion to dismiss with prejudice; I deleted all evidence from my YouTube channel, therefore HE'S LYING ABOUT WATCHING THE VIDEO. No, I don't host videos anywhere outside of YouTube, THE COURT IS FULL OF LIARS RUINING MY BUZZ."

 

[TwinPeaksEnjoyer]

Ahh Rekieta you're fucked buddy.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

Page 6, it says the detective downloaded the video from Rekieta's channel.

Technically it says Pomplun watched the stream on Nick's channel but doesn't say where he acquired the copy. I don't think it matters, Pomplun is saying the copy is the same as what he watched on Nick's channel before it was taken down and that he's a trained expert in spotting crackheads. Seems like they're putting it on Nick to dispute that with hard evidence.

 

[TexOffender]

View attachment 6364815

Ahh Rekieta you're fucked buddy.

Pretty much exactly what Kurt, Sean, etc were saying.

 

[Vibralldo]

The court prosecution sounds pissed at Nick in the end paragraph for trying to portray them as incompetent corrupt liars.

Good work, Balldo!

Pretty much exactly what Kurt, Sean, etc were saying.

It's what literally everyone but Nick (non practicing lawyer) and his (apparently incompetent) lawyer were saying.

Suffah, Balldo child, your life is already over! Enjoy trial!

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Yeah but there's no way that's true. It's watermarked with Cog's logo and Pomplun reports the title as that title of Cog's reupload.

From Nick's motion to suppress:

I wonder if the stuff in the PowerPoint was from Cog's, but the actual evidence was from the download? That said, it doesn't matter, Cog's upload was a 1:1 of Rekieta's stream (less some re-processing).

 

[Warm Lasagna]

Oh they mad.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

I wonder if the stuff in the PowerPoint was from Cog's, but the actual evidence was from the download? That said, it doesn't matter, Cog's upload was a 1:1 of Rekieta's stream (less some re-processing).

I'm hoping for a jury trial and they have to sit through the entire four hour stream. They'll crucify him after that.

 

[Canard]

I love how polite they are about the BS Nick and his lawyer spewed and Nick has been spewing...

 

[Nicholas II of Russia]

Let's spill one for the little Rackets, his sorry ass is going to prison.

 

[Bloodthirsty Nosenigger]

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.

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.

Damnit Nick, we lost the case again!

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

I love how polite they are about the BS Nick and his lawyer spewed and Nick has been spewing...

Can't wait to hear Barnes' spin. I wouldn't be surprised if he never mentions this case again.

 

[OTView]

"Nick Rekieta's motion to dismiss evidence was laughed out of court in a rather sassy manner."
What? Am I misreading the documents? Is this not just the prosecutor's response to nick's bullshit, and the judge still has to actually make a decision?

 

[Pentamidine]

I wonder if the stuff in the PowerPoint was from Cog's, but the actual evidence was from the download? That said, it doesn't matter, Cog's upload was a 1:1 of Rekieta's stream (less some re-processing).

Re-reading Nick's motion, they only reference the clip in the powerpoint video and don't bring up the full 4 hour video they were given. The clip in the powerpoint is the one they point out is from Cog's channel. So you're probably right, if the full 4 hour video had been snagged from Cog's channel, they'd have called it out in their motion.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

The DA seems ready to fight Nick.

“courts must be careful not to review each component of the affidavit in isolation.” Id. “[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.” State v. Jones, 678 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 2004).

So they can sum up evidence to get PC. There is no onse-shot kil-shot available here.

Franks is limited to cases of perjurious or recklessly false statements made by a police officer in support of a warrant; the rule does not apply to negligent misrepresentations or omissions. U.S. v. Schmitz, 181 F.3d 981, 986 (8th Cir. 1999).

It cannot be mistakes or incompetence to trigger this hearing.

The search warrant was not based solely on the child maltreatment report. Further, the screening of child maltreatment reports is controlled by an entirely different set of statutes and standards than criminal offenses. Whether there is enough to investigate a child maltreatment report has no bearing on whether or not criminal activity may be occurring.

[SNIP]

It is not relevant that the child maltreatment report was screened out by KCHHS. Even if it was relevant, whether or not the child maltreatment report was screened out by an entirely different agency using a different standard has no bearing on the probable cause determination in the search warrant. The report was the basis for the start of law enforcement’s investigation. It was not the entire investigation. It was not the sole basis for the application of the search warrant.

The neglect report was only the genesis of the investigation. CPS does not have any say in the warrant. This was not the sole basis of the investigation; just the precipitating event.

The information provided by Imholte is not the sole basis for the search warrant. Imholte’s video on May 22, 2024, refers to a video the Defendant produced on 5/21/2024 where the Defendant appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. Detective Pomplun did not rely on that statement alone. Detective Pomplun watched the Defendant’s video for himself. Detective Pomplun has been trained as drug recognition expert where he received specialized training to identify the signs and symptoms when someone is under the influence of a controlled substance. Based on his review of the video, Detective Pomplun stated the Defendant was showing signs of being under the influence of a controlled substance.

Aaron was not the only basis for the warrant. Pomplun used his own training and experience.

The Defendant argues that Detective Pomplun did not watch the entire video that the Defendant published on his social media on May 21, 2024.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

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.

BTFO 'muh edits', 'he did not watch it on my channel', and 'not the same video'. It appears they downloaded it DIRECTLY from Nick's channel.

Additionally, Detective Pomplun viewed videos from the Defendant’s channel going back several months. Between January 2024 and May 2024, Detective Pomplun notes the Defendant’s changes in appearance including that he has lost weight, appears tired, and overall appears "strung out". All of these are common with controlled substance users per Detective Pomplun’s specialized training as a drug recognition expert and his experience as a police officer.

Pomplun has watch many of Nick's videos to get a pattern of behaviour.

When law enforcement found the firearms, it was immediately apparent that they were evidence of a crime. In Minnesota, it is unlawful for a user of controlled substances to possess a firearm.

[SNIP]

When law enforcement found firearms in the home, it was immediately apparent that the firearms were evidence of a crime based on the controlled substance use. There was no need to further search the firearms. Their possession is evidence of a crime making it immediately apparent to law enforcement of their evidentiary value.

Guns + drugs = crime by itself.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

I'm hoping for a jury trial and they have to sit through the entire four hour stream. They'll crucify him after that.

Naw, Nick was super likable throughout that entire stream. What's not likable about an adult bitching and moaning about a cancer patient not dying, judges with pussy liquor, Montegraph is a pedophile, and ANIMESUCKSCOPEANDSNEED

 

[Pitbull Victim]

The court sounds pissed at Nick in the end paragraph for trying to portray them as incompetent corrupt liars.

It's the prosecutor's brief, though it does show they are not rolling over for any of his bullshit.

Now White gets to file the reply to the State since he requested permission for that at the Omnibus and I believe the court granted it.

 

[Chode]

Nicks motion to dismiss:

More likely, Applicant’s assertion that he was “able to review the video…” did not necessitate serving a warrant on Alphabet, Inc., because Applicant reviewed an edited version titled “Nick Rekieta’s Drunk Stream After Losing His Appeal.” In Discovery, the state produced a PowerPoint presentation with, what purports to be, a clip of Defendant’s May 21, 2022 live stream video, as well as an image purporting to be a screenshot of the same. Not only is this video titled differently, it came from a different YouTube channel (Backwards Internet) and was uploaded at a different date/time from Defendant’s original. It also contains a watermark not present in the original video. The watermark is open and notorious in the lower righthand corner of the video and appears to mimic the branding of the edited video’s host channel. Applicant did not review Defendant’s original video; this was a misrepresentation of a material fact to the judicial officer.
For the reasons, pursuant to Franks, the Court must find that the search warrant, devoid...

From the state's response:

This was a clip from the full video that Detective Pomplun created. It was disclosed to the defense on July 3, 2024. Defense counsel downloaded it at 12:31 p.m. on July 3, 2024. What was also disclosed on July 3, 2024 (at the same time as the powerpoint clip), was the entire 4 hour and 4 minute long video from the Defendant’s channel with audio. This was downloaded by defense counsel on July 18, 2024 at 12:49 p.m. This full video has been uploaded to MNDES for the court to review and shared with the Defendant.

So they had the entire video Pomplun disclosed to them and tried to pass off a lazy screengrab from cog's channel as the entire discovery?
Any ramifications for this type of fuckery?