- Joined
- Dec 8, 2019
What a weird ass thing to put in a legal document.
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Rekieta, Kayla Rekieta, April Imholte
- Thread starter Useful_Mistake
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2021
I love the fact for months nick has been muddying the waters as to the warrant and mixing the child endangerment as being part of the issues with obtaining the warrant.
Nicks been neglecting the fact PC is a lower threshold and he's been rallying his balldo washers like Joe the Jew & Barnes and blaming everything on Aaron while ignoring the fact he streamed himself high on coke more than once.
It's been pretty obvious nicks total attempt at control against his detractors or as I see them people saying the same things we have been saying with less slurs.
Sean, Sean! God damn it sean I'll await the glorious breakdown from the jolly fat lawyer who has been funny during this saga.
Nicks been neglecting the fact PC is a lower threshold and he's been rallying his balldo washers like Joe the Jew & Barnes and blaming everything on Aaron while ignoring the fact he streamed himself high on coke more than once.
It's been pretty obvious nicks total attempt at control against his detractors or as I see them people saying the same things we have been saying with less slurs.
Sean, Sean! God damn it sean I'll await the glorious breakdown from the jolly fat lawyer who has been funny during this saga.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2021
Glad to see that at least the prosecution has some brain cells
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
Do you think he got a doormat lawyer so he could represent himself through him without technically representing himself?
Because that's what this looks like.
Because that's what this looks like.
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
But is is more strange than 'belts and suspenders' in a motion hearing?
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
Almost definitely, but Nick could save a whole bunch of money by just representing himself. He's allowed to, he's just fucking retarded and thinks splurging money means he's successful.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
But representing yourself is dumb and bad luck. So he evades that by getting a lawyer that won't take charge. That's how it works, right?
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
It's amazing how much better a lawyer you can tell the prosecutor is jut by the clarity and precision of her writing. It's not perfect, but it's so much better than what Nick or his hired hand can manage.
- Joined
- May 16, 2019
You know how we sometimes joke about "I feel bad for the fed who has to watch all this retard's videos." Turns out they weren't jokes, Detective Pomplun is the poor sap who got the job, and Nick is the idiot who provided the streams.
- Joined
- May 31, 2024
Maybe I'm missing it, but I think the State possibly missed what Rekieta's argument is. Perhaps intentionally.
From the doc:
If the clip has the watermark, then it is from a copy which Nick says would invalidate the warrant as "Pomplun lied about the origin". The state seems confused about the argument that Nick is making.
In addition, Nick is going to hyperventilate on "the full video Pomplun created." Nick: "He created it, Sean. Prosecutor said he created it. He Lied, Sean."
On the other hand, it's possibly a brilliant way to force Nick to explain the differences while saying it's ludicrous for Pomplun to believe he is misleading the court.
Either way, Nick is going to jump on it: "See!! They admit they only have the video with the watermark!! My video has no watermark! They're lying when they say they have my video! See Sean! Sean!"
The response will be "Gotcha!" followed by "You're retarded" by the judge.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2019
That poor guy. Nick's streams are unbearable.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2017
Are you referring to some shit he said on stream? Unless his defense attorney filed that in his motion, they are not going to respond to it.
Lying to retards on the internet isn't a crime.
- Joined
- May 4, 2022
Actually it is. They passed a law earlier this year and the punishment is ten consecutive death penalties.
Last edited:
Kipersonapiscesotter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2024
Overall good response from the prosecutor. No nonsense and rejecting the word games Nick was trying to play.
Defense will get a rebuttal and you can expect to see more "my client hid the video and the cops didn't say where he got it from! That's a lie and Mr Balldo should instantly win". She maybe should have got ahead of it more as her wording around no longer publicly available is going to be seized on to allege some "How'd you get the video then"
So the prosecutor is essentially not playing these games that the video isn't original or a copy or whatever. Probably because she has no idea what the defense lawyer means when he is attempting to dance on the head of a pin and doesn't allege any cases that would change what the cop saw. She is also inferring that there is no watermark on the full video, not that it matters either way. Probably cos Rekieta Law is splashed all over it and there is zero evidence of an edit.
So at best we can say she didn't get pedantic in her replies, but that's likely cos she has no idea what the defense counsel is getting at on specifics.
I'd say the Frank's hearing is going to be denied. At best there is some ambiguity on word meaning and interpretation and you just can't get to intensionally misleading on circular logic of "the cop didn't specify it and that in itself is proof that it changes things". Eh, no.
Defense will get a rebuttal and you can expect to see more "my client hid the video and the cops didn't say where he got it from! That's a lie and Mr Balldo should instantly win". She maybe should have got ahead of it more as her wording around no longer publicly available is going to be seized on to allege some "How'd you get the video then"
So the prosecutor is essentially not playing these games that the video isn't original or a copy or whatever. Probably because she has no idea what the defense lawyer means when he is attempting to dance on the head of a pin and doesn't allege any cases that would change what the cop saw. She is also inferring that there is no watermark on the full video, not that it matters either way. Probably cos Rekieta Law is splashed all over it and there is zero evidence of an edit.
So at best we can say she didn't get pedantic in her replies, but that's likely cos she has no idea what the defense counsel is getting at on specifics.
I'd say the Frank's hearing is going to be denied. At best there is some ambiguity on word meaning and interpretation and you just can't get to intensionally misleading on circular logic of "the cop didn't specify it and that in itself is proof that it changes things". Eh, no.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
They often don't and can't introduce the former affidavit as evidence. This is why when you hear cops being examined often on old cases, the examining prosecutor will often refer to the previous affidavit to "refresh your recollection." This does not mean the affidavit itself is admissable. The jury doesn't get to ask to see the affidavit since it is not, itself, "in evidence." It might have an exhibit number but that doesn't mean it's for the jury. They're supposed to look at what the witness said on the stand.
Sometimes a defense lawyer will choose not to object if the prosecutor for some reason wants the cop to do something stupid like just read the affidavit into the record like a narrative. This kind of shit isn't convincing. The jury notices this guy is just reading a self-serving document into the record.
It was literal retard shit not worth addressing, at least at the probable cause stage.
But I DESTROYED the evidence, judge child! That means you can't prosecute me and you certainly can't add more destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice charges! Enjoy prison!
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2024
The more you fight and cause difficulty for the prosecution the worse your plea offer will be.
He is hoping that some technicality gets this shit thrown out but he's batting 0.000
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2023
This is true, even if you "delete" something, they have to actually retain it for a specified amount of time on the backend as required by statute, if I'm not mistaken.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Laughed out of court is seriously premature. The court has not ruled on this yet.
Let's not mince words here. Nick and his lawyer outright lied about numerous matters of public record and that's just one.
Not really. In theory it can be called something like "fraud on the court" and prosecuted. In reality, parties in cases lie all the time and courts are used to it, and the usual consequence is the court no longer takes anything you say seriously and you lose your case.
The side that didn't (provably) lie wins, and that's the consequence. And if you mean the prosecution there literally is no fuckery. The two videos are identical in actual content. Only retards buy Nick's bullshit.
That's the law, dude. Once they saw the drugs when they started their search, plus the "snort tubes" (this weird term kind of makes me chuckle) indicating actual use, the instant they also saw guns, well, you got another crime going on there according to Minnesota law prohibiting illegal drug users from owning guns, much as federal law does.
I personally disagree with this law, but it IS the law. Nick has no case.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2024
It's probably just privated anyways. Google can likely make it reappear either way with a court order.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2023