Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

What would the outcome of the harassment restraining order be?

  • A WIN for the Toe against Patrick Melton.

    Votes: 63 18.2%
  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 92 26.6%
  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 53 15.3%
  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 134 38.7%

  • Total voters
    346
This is very autistic. Here in the real world partners "get in trouble" with each other all the time over things like "forgetting the anniversary", "Being indecisive on where to eat" and many other subjects. If you want to pilpul over words do it somewhere else.

Speaking of autistic!^ We were already in pedant territory; that was the point.

And to continue leaning in, if you're not joking or being wry about "being trouble" with a spouse for your thoughtlessness or irritating tendencies, you're a retard.
 
View attachment 6364804
Don't they know that it's Nick who decides what is truth and what isn't based on what makes him feel nice and gay?
It's almost as if we were right and regularly streaming about how the local government is corrupt and conspired to ruin your life was a bad idea and now the prosecution is pissed off at you and out for blood!

Have fun in court, Balldo!
 
1725055348489.png

So if I'm reading this right, did Pomplun watch the livestream at the time of happening? This would explain why the cops went after him shortly after the stream finished.

The video was no longer available but he was able to view the entire video stream.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So if I'm reading this right, did Pomplun watch the livestream at the time of happening? This would explain why the cops went after him shortly after the stream finished.
Either that or he was able to watch the replay on Youtube before Nick removed it. It says Pomplun had been watching Rekieta's streams for a while and IIRC that stream was up on Youtube for plenty of time before Nick removed it. It's still up on his Odysee channel. Youtube isn't mentioned, maybe they meant Odysee all along. In other words it's irrelevant and sleazy criminal defense attorney smoke-and-mirrors.
 
So if I'm reading this right, did Pomplun watch the livestream at the time of happening? This would explain why the cops went after him shortly after the stream finished.
I don't think he did. From the application for a warrant:
1725055710546.png

He learned about the coke stream from Aaron's video after the coke stream had been taken down. Unless he watched it on Odyssee, he watched a reupload.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The lack of any meaningful analysis from the prosecutor here *really* shows you how doomed Nick’s motion is. The response, as a whole, barely has to describe any of the logic behind Nicks’s arguments. Nothing needs to be countered with more than a simple recitation of the underlying facts. No analysis required.
IMG_0060.jpeg
Also, language like “completely overlooks” here is just about as confrontational as someone should be. A good way to tell the Court, “hey look at this fucking retard” without going overboard.

Times are tough

:really:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really, really great motion from the prosecution. The franks hearing should be denied
Aside from the actual merits of the brief—which of course are on point—it's refreshing to read something that actually reads like it was written by a professional attorney who takes the profession seriously after the clown-car filings we've seen thus far.
 
The lack of any meaningful analysis from the prosecutor here *really* shows you how doomed Nick’s motion is. The response, as a whole, barely has to describe any of the logic behind Nicks’s arguments. Nothing needs to be countered with more than a simple recitation of the underlying facts. No analysis required.
View attachment 6364843
Also, language like “completely overlooks” here is just about as confrontational as someone should be. A good way to tell the Court, “hey look at this fucking retard” without going overboard.

Times are tough

:really:
How did his attorney miss that though? There's surely no way they submitted that without looking at what they were given? Is he representing himself? This raises so many questions that I'm legitimately confused.
 
Now you know why Mindset blocked nick as a preemptive action. Nick has a new blood enemy.

1725056001659.png

L | A

did Pomplun watch the livestream at the time of happening?
I don't think he did. From the application for a warrant:

View attachment 6364871

He learned about the coke stream from Aaron's video after the coke stream had been taken down. Unless he watched it on Odyssee, he watched a reupload.

It seems to say that he has watched it, but that seems impossible. It could be a technological illiteracy on behalf of the police. I hope Nick hones in on this issue and does not get the court to understand it, and it ends up not mattering.

Regardless of the legal strategy pursued, Nick is going to sperg about this like it is the lynch pin to the whole case and it will be funny.
 
How did his attorney miss that though? There's surely no way they submitted that without looking at what they were given? Is he representing himself? This raises so many questions that I'm legitimately confused.
Probably just doing what Nick tells him to and then fill in the billable hours... That is what I would do with Nick... Though I would be worried to be able to get the money...
 
Speaking of pedantic:

A more correct phrase would be "consented to." Directly or indirectly.

Independent adults have the right and capacity to do whatever. Short of locking her in a closet, he couldn't have "prevented" her from anything.

And "get in trouble" is something more appropriate in relation to a child. Get mad, leave her, whatever may be the consequence of unsanctioned fucking around, to equate that to "getting in trouble" is kind of creepy re an adult. He's not (at least not by virtue of being her husband) her disciplianarian; he is her (supposed) partner. But the role requires mutual agreement. And consequences aren't "getting in trouble" (putting aside colloquialisms like "in trouble with the law," though even that phrase implies an authority [figure]).

And as an aside, the use of possessive pronouns is as much about specificity as it is "ownership." But even "ownership" is not meant in the same sense as when a person owns a thing.
You're likely correct about the strict definitions of the words, although I would continue to argue that Nick is supposed to be the authority figure in his home. He's even full-on Christian book-married and everything, and that's what the vows say. However, we have the urgent matter of pissing on Nick's grave to attend to, after the prosecutor eviscerated him. Therefore, I humbly request that we postpone the debate.
 
It appears that Nick's argument that "it's not the same video" is so retarded that the state didn't get it and they thought he meant detective Plimplum only watched the clip (which is also argued in Nick's motion if I remember correctly, so they are not wrong, that motion was such a mess). Very good. As dumb as Nick's argument is, it wasn't even explained in his filing, so no wonder the state is confused.

Can't wait for Nick's response.
 
Back