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 21.6%

  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.4%

  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 83 28.4%

  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 42 14.4%

  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 100 34.2%
  • Total voters
    292
AnOminous said:
That said, I view the behavior criminalized by these statutes so utterly vile I'd never do this myself. Once when a woman broke up with me she later expressed horror at the thought I'd ever spread her nudes as some sort of revenge. I was absolutely horrified that she'd think I would do something that vile and actually deleted them.

I don't need a law to tell me not to do something utterly disgusting.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And to add, they had a sexual relationship. That is way more intimate than an inanimate photo. It's a bit backward to criticize the woman for hitting send but not criticizing her relationship. It's vile that Aaron saved and sent the photo. It's more vile that Aaron was in a relationship with Kayla.

And probably the most vile is Nick being more angry at the photo than Aaron fucking his wife.

Priorities I guess.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: USAroXX, Associate Rick, Hellion and 1 other person
24.08.30 - Rekieta xitter 1.png (Xeet / Archive)

Nick remains quite confident. Could we have another seethe stream today?
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Mexican Molotov Marauder, AntiSchwuletteAktion, marbury and 56 others
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: koos koets, DopeAddictKittenV2, Trianon and 35 others
Himedall All-seeing Waifu said:
EPCI 200 IQ lawyer move! Nick claims he never tried to 'suppress' anything! He only tried to 'supress' it! Checkmate, Kiwifags!
Click to expand...
Lol. Supress is the name of an Indian cough syrup.

326514326_838788943863373_400036730236199548_n.jpg

"Safe to drink and drive." :story::story::story:

I know the above is leaving off an "s" but there's another cough syrup listed on this site (a) that has that second 's' and also originates from India. It's likely a rebranding.

Untitled.png
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL, Coo Coo Bird, USAroXX and 20 others
Third World Aristocrat said:
View attachment 6365531 (Xeet / Archive)

Nick remains quite confident. Could we have another seethe stream today?
Click to expand...
Nick believes he still has a solid argument, if he can prove the video provided to them was not directly downloaded from one of his accounts.
He still does not grasp the reality. Without an actual affidavit and proof that the video was altered in a way to create evidence that was not in the original video, to obtain a warrant that would have otherwise not have been granted, he will not even get to the Franks hearing.

The video could be downloaded from a North Korean filehoster with a a watermark and it would still be admissible as long as its content, Nick behaving like a typical drug user live on camera, was still clearly observable.

To get it kicked out for the warrant they have to prove it was modified with intent to mislead.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: USAroXX, John Andrews Stan, Associate Rick and 3 others
Gobermental Supervisor said:
Nick believes he still has a solid argument, if he can prove the video provided to them was not directly downloaded from one of his accounts.
He still does not grasp the reality. Without an actual affidavit and proof that the video was altered in a way to create evidence that was not in the original video, to obtain a warrant that would have otherwise not have been granted, he will not even get to the Franks hearing.

The video could be downloaded from a North Korean filehoster with a a watermark and it would still be admissible as long as its content, Nick behaving like a typical drug user live on camera, was still clearly observable.

To get it kicked out for the warrant they have to prove it was modified with intent to mislead.
Click to expand...
He basically has to prove it was a knowing lie. He thinks the cop being wrong is a lie, or worse, somehow believes that it is a lie.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: USAroXX, John Andrews Stan, Associate Rick and 14 others
Third World Aristocrat said:
View attachment 6365531 (Xeet / Archive)

Nick remains quite confident. Could we have another seethe stream today?
Click to expand...
So, he anticipated the state would respond this way, right, that's what he's saying? He expected the state would want evidence to back up his claims that the video was altered. Yet, he did not offer that evidence up to and including the date of the hearing. So he withheld that evidence, while anticipating the state would want it, right? Nick, you are one dumb fuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAroXX, StraightOuttaSomalia, Hellion and 9 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back