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.

[USAroXX]

As much disgust Kayla induces on me by continuing indulging Nick´s degeneracy - most likely willingly - and exposing her kids to all the shit that still happens. going hard on her in a case she is undoubtedly the victim, of a very minor and stupid crime because of the scope of the RP material distribution, would really irk me and probably fuck Aaron´s defense;

Lololololol
Nope.
The polycule in a home of FIVE Children ruins ANY sympathy for kayla.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

He came back from a hard day of hunting and is often represented as starving after capturing no game. The sale was under duress.

If you have sources for these claims, feel free to DM them to me.

 

[thebigdream]

BTW: Aside from the fact that she previously had her nudes and bottle pic shared to thousands of people, there’s also the fact that Kayla wanted them to officially be a foursome and raise kids together.

Now while that’s not directly related to the pics, one could certainly make an easy argument for Aaron believing that Kayla wouldn’t have a problem with any pictures being shared. (To one person.)

As much as I hope the State will be generous, I don't expect it to see Aaron's actions favourably. While there's some evidence that Kayla has exhibitionist tendencies, there are no known examples of her a) sharing actual pornography more broadly than her messages with Aaron, and b) consenting to them being shared by Aaron. It's absurd to think that anyone who posts risque pictures then consents to their private nudes being shared around by anyone for perpetuity.

With that said, the harassment aspect of his charges are bogus, as others have duly noted. Aaron's just a dumb, lovesick cuck your honor he dindu nuffin.

 

[AnOminous]

She will need to double up on the benzos for sure for the trial.

First, it's contempt of court to show up intoxicated. Second, one of the opening questions, especially for a drug addict, is whether or not they're on any substances that would compromise their memory. Lying about that is perjury.

So sure if she wanted to add two more crimes to her rap sheet.

 

[Mister Friendly Dude]

Qapla!

Fuck now I want to boot up STO again and check on my ships, specially my dear D'deridex.

I really hope Aaron goes through trial - tho I really, really doubt it because this is the stupidest charge - so we can get all the juicy deets under oath. I really hope Nick´s pissing on Aaron´s tent by making the RP claim blows back right on his face.

"Now your honor we enter into evidence this device called, "balldo", which my client said his husband used because he couldn't achieve erection. We believe that this device is the reason why Miss Kayla send the pictures to our client."

 

[N1bbaN3rd]

I’m thinking when his Fleshlight finally leaves him he’ll start chasing troon dick next. “It’s not gay if they identify as a woman!”

"See guys, Mandy was a girl all along!"

 

[ChromaQuack]

Rivkah wasn’t even present when Eisav came in from hunting and Yakov was cooking. Eisav had tricked Yitzhak into believing he was righteous, though, and he made a binding contract with Yakov while in his right mind, completely sober. He was no victim.

God, I hope Nick doesn’t decide to do a “Bible study” on Yakov and Eisav.

: 'well you see actually Eisav confused Yakov's cooking with a nearby Denny's food and was so confused by what was in the pot that he made the contract to eat it and find out, Rivkah wasn't present because she was a SCANDINAVIAN PRUDE who could not even buy pre-boiled eggs and Doritos for the hunters so they could spend their days monogamously 'knowing' all women in a 20 mile radius (monogamously).

The moral of the story is that cooking for yourself is like guantanamo bay for stegoprudes and you should just buy your eggs ready made from Whole Foods.'

 

[USAroXX]

The judge went out of his way not to make a ruling on it and the prosecutor claimed April’s comments were hearsay and that was why they weren’t using it. I feel like the kiwi reporters shouldn’t have missed such a major part of the hearing, which lead to pages and pages of speculation as a result.

I can only repeat.
Farmers MISSED NOTHING.
Token said: Motion in limine.
Judge said: Motion in Limine.
State Did NOT agree to NOT use April's Bodycam.
STATE did NOT agree any miranda rights were violated [which is what Boss Baby Barnes CRIED in a girly voice about and what JUNKIE claimed in his motion and his post omnibus stream, I thought].
STATE merely Agreed Ape's statements outside of court are hearsay. YET if u think about it EVERYTHING outside of court is all hearsay in actuality. SO NOT A MISS by anybody, Farmer or Lawyer.

Goberment Spectator AND AnOminus ALSO posted that Ape's BODYCAMS can be used but will be decided in later, closer to trial, Motion In Limine and/or should ape testify whether SPECIFIC statements will be WHITE Noised out of her bodycam [as was done with darrel brooks girlfriend bodycam]. NICK LIED in his Post-omnibus junkie freak-out stream.

Additionally, as another post here NOTED that even Ape's attorney FAILED to mention these alleged Violation of Miranda Rights....!!!!
Miranda right?
Not Mentioned at the get????
NOBODY Finds that glaring????

Bottom Line: Nick lied POST Omnibus and WITHOUT Kiwi Farmers present we would not have known about Ape's MOTION IN LIMINE. Farmers=1. Junkie=negative 400 lies.

Farmers Missed Nothing AND added GREAT people details. The idea to STOP farmer attendance is assinine. I bet they improve with every future attendance and become even better reporters BUT ALSO they shall become better non-practicing attorneys-- even better than JUNKIE himself.

 

[Desktop User2]

Lololololol
Nope.
The polycule in a home of FIVE Children ruins ANY sympathy for kayla.

I dont know how exposing the mother of said FIVE children even more would be in their interest or just for our amusement, specially in a case she is a victim. Dont know how smart it would be to harass on the stand a witness allegedly being criminally harassed by your client.

 

[Why am I doing this?]

You niggers better stop posting about Nick Rekieta in my Jacob and Esau thread!

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

As much as I hope the State will be generous, I don't expect it to see Aaron's actions favourably. While there's some evidence that Kayla has exhibitionist tendencies, there are no known examples of her a) sharing actual pornography online, and b) consenting to this being done by Aaron. It's absurd to think that anyone who posts risque pictures then consents to their private nudes being shared around by anyone for perpetuity.

With that said, the harassment aspect of his charges are bogus, as others have duly noted. Aaron's just a dumb, lovesick cuck your honor he dindu nuffin.

Agree re the harassment aspect. Talking about someone seems a long way from harassment. If it's true he didn't reach out to her and it was him that cut contact, speaking about the relationship on stream seems very far from harassment.

I also wonder about other aspects. They say it was a group chat. So that means Nick, April and Aaron were sent it. If you send a nude to 3 people at the same time, is there really a privacy expectation?

Where's the photo? The cop says the photo was described. Doesn't stare that it was shown to her. It will need to be in discovery if so. Plus it didn't take me long to find a photo of Kayla with a tattoo under her breast showing (although not naked).

Although I have little doubt Aaron did it, the case seems questionable, very much so on harassment grounds.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Nick was leaving food out for their roaming cats and that is what likely attracted them in the first place.

Yes that's why I italicized "don't be a twit and leave treats out for raccoons"

It's disgusting he basically lured them in, saw the problem, refused to correct himself, then brutally killed things just doing the predictable animal. Every single thing he did was unnecessary, negligent, and stupid. Do I spy a life pattern? Hmm.

I don’t disagree that they did well for us, but the fact is, there was never an order to prevent April’s testimony, nor was it deemed that her rights were violated.
The judge went out of his way not to make a ruling on it and the prosecutor claimed April’s comments were hearsay and that was why they weren’t using it. I feel like the kiwi reporters shouldn’t have missed such a major part of the hearing, which lead to pages and pages of speculation as a result.
I’m grateful for their service and I agree that people always should be in person, but at the same time I think they dropped the ball there.

Jesus Christ. 1. They owed no one anything. 2. They acquitted themselves well. 3. They were not or were not there in capacities as lawyers. 4. They provided milk, and, even better, a nice little vignette and human side-story. 5. The transcript was out fast enough. 6. Speculation is half the fun.

it can be done with adults who are very into being The Smartest Guy in the Room- tell them about 80% of a course of treatment with one glaringly obvious bit missing. Being so so so smart, they usually jump at the chance to fill in the missing 20%, and then you can be like "wow! I never thought of it that way!" and they've invented therapy! It was all their idea. I

Can confirm.

As the statute you cite states, no such "presumption" exists for either of those two elements. Instead, it is a necessary element which must be proven that Aaron knew or should have known that there was an expectation of privacy. Same for the other element.

Yes, you're correct that the state has to show that the defendant knows/should knows that the person depicted did not consent to the dissemination. But in the absence of actual knowledge of non-consent, you're in a contextual analysis. And if the state asserts that it is reasonable that any dropped lover would know that his ex does not consent to her nudes being sent around, points to the fact that the pic was either sent just to Aaron or shared only in a very small, tight group of intertwined lovers, then Aaron would need to pull up something to rebut the assertion and show that it was, in fact, unreasonable for him to think Kayla wouldn't be OK with him sending her full frontal to Geno in NY, who, at the time, was Team Aaron. Absent any evidence one way or another (and Kayla could of course testify that she would never ever have consented to that, so good luck defeating that without some explicit indication of "sure send it to Geno"), you're at a jury assessment of whether the reasonable starting point for Aaron was consent or non-consent. And even in outstate Minnesota, implicit consent to sending or publishing private pics is going to be a hard sell.

Was I out over my skis on that assertion of a "presumption" (in the legal sense) of nonconsent? Yes and no. Let's see:

The law on criminal nonconsensual dissemination of pornography is quite undeveloped in general - MN in 2020 was still deciding Constitutional questions around its statute (see State of Minnesota v Casillas, decided by the MN Supreme Court at the end of 2020, holding that 617.261, which was earlier struck down by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, survived the strict scrutiny standard and is a Constitutional restriction on speech) and MN's non-felony provision itself is on the vanguard of US legislation by not even requiring specific intent to cause x outcome. I could refer to analogous arguments about default privacy presumptions, but that's the stuff of advocates and positional law review articles.

However, I refer you to footnote 9 of the Casillas decision by the MN Supreme Court:

In our view, it is not difficult to obtain consent before disseminating a private sexual image. Simply ask permission. We cannot imagine an emergency situation that requires the immediate dissemination of a private sexual image.

The footnote follows the only statement made as to consent in the opinion, which was to acknowledge exceptions for commercial works ("This provision provides additional protection for commercial advertisements, certain adult films, artistic works, and other creative expression outside the statute’s scope.")

In the absence of significant caselaw to the contrary*, I'm going to say that the main (and maybe only?) indicator from the MN Supreme Court is that interpreting "reasonably should know that the person depicted in the image does not consent to the dissemination" is going to be a very low bar to clear, with the (informal, norm) starting point being nonconsent.

* I concede that on remand the MN Court of Appeals stated,

Casillas argues that Minn. Stat. § 617.261 is vague because there could be circumstances in which defendants would not have knowledge of facts that make their conduct illegal. For example, Casillas proffers a hypothetical in which a person "texts a nude or semi-nude photo of him or herself to a partner and [the] partner shows the photo to a third party" to brag, and "not to get revenge or humiliate." Casillas queries whether under those circumstances, the partner should "'reasonably have known' that the sender did not consent to the 'dissemination'" or "that the sender had a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Casillas's hypothetical does not establish that Minn. Stat. § 617.261 is unconstitutionally void. It merely demonstrates that there may be close cases in which the state must rely on circumstantial evidence to prove a charge of unlawful dissemination of private sexual images under Minn. Stat. § 617.261. See Williams, 553 U.S. at 305-06, 128 S. Ct. at 1846 (observing that hypotheticals advanced as examples of vagueness were really examples of close cases resolved by the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and not by the vagueness doctrine).

But with the MN Supreme Court's comment in mind, in the absence of something very clear like "I don't mind if you share this to anyone now or if we ever break up," if reasonableness bears any relationship to sanity, I can't think of a scenario where it is unreasonable that an ex would know that the ex did not consent to having their nudes shared with others beyond the single or small group in which it was shared. Consent is an affirmative action.

The reality is that Aaron didn't pause to think whether Kayla consented or not, but he should have.

 

[thebigdream]

If you send a nude to 3 people at the same time, is there really a privacy expectation?

In the context of Kayla's relationship with the other three, and given the private means of communication, I think she could persuasively argue yes, she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If she sent them to strangers unsolicited, or sent messages indicating she didn't care what he did with them, or she published them on a public forum, I could see there being ammo for Aaron to fight it, but the facts as they are just don't give him license to take the nudes and run wild with them. From what we know of the interaction (and I'm open to new facts coming to light), it should've been obvious to everyone in the group that these were sent just for their enjoyment. Their relationship was open to its members but even now it's something the remaining three don't openly share details of, let alone pornography.

 

[Potato CPA]

You niggers better stop posting about Nick Rekieta in my Jacob and Esau thread!

It actually made me want to read this part of the bible. I hear a lot about Jacob and Isaac and Abraham but this Esau guy is news to me. Betrayal, Bribery, Intrigue. Really seems like the bible has it all, story-wise

 

[Bowl of Ramen]

It actually made me want to read this part of the bible. I hear a lot about Jacob and Isaac and Abraham but this Esau guy is news to me. Betrayal, Bribery, Intrigue. Really seems like the bible has it all, story-wise

Proof that there is nothing new under the sun. I’m not entirely sure when Modern Man(tm) got the idea he was more important than any generation before him, but we’ve literally invented nothing that hasn’t been done before. The Old Testament is basically God telling us that we’re stupid and we keep making the same mistakes, over and over again, we can’t even keep to ten basic rules for good living.

Hubris seems to be a theme in this thread.

 

[Obnoxious Asshole]

When it comes to Aaron's charges, remember Ralph's sex tape (I'll give us all a minute to recover.) Even with a previous felony charge (losing a fight to a female cop by throwing the only punch) Piggertits still ended up with time suspended. If Aaron gets time and the polycule Crackets walks I will be at an absolute loss.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

All this hand wringing about revenge porn has made me come around to Nick's point of view. Minnesotans are Scandinavian incel prudes. There is no reason a tit pic should be classified as pornography.

But there it is, in the statute- exposed or partially exposed nipple.

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

In the context of Kayla's relationship with the other three, and given the private means of communication, I think she could persuasively argue yes, she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If she sent them to strangers unsolicited, or sent messages indicating she didn't care what he did with them, or she published them on a public forum, I could see there being ammo for Aaron to fight it, but the facts as they are just don't give him license to take the nudes and run wild with them. From what we know of the interaction (and I'm open to new facts coming to light), it should've been obvious to everyone in the group that these were sent just for their enjoyment. Their relationship was open to its members but even now it's something the remaining three don't openly share details of, let alone pornography.

They don't even admit to a relationship. I agree it's a weak argument, but there are lots of weak parts.

Geno and Keanu were happy with Aaron for more than a month after the photo was shared. Cos he was paying them. I'm guessing they didn't share it with the cop.

What photo? Kayla didn't give it to the cop. Geno says deleted it. There is a photos online showing Kayla semi naked, with tattoos and in one of them the tattoo below her breast is visible.

 

[Swole McPole]

It actually made me want to read this part of the bible. I hear a lot about Jacob and Isaac and Abraham but this Esau guy is news to me. Betrayal, Bribery, Intrigue. Really seems like the bible has it all, story-wise

I also went and Googled it. I hadn't heard the story since I was going to Sunday School. A very long time ago.

Also, is tricking gingers out of their property really a crime? I'm not sure it is. If you leave them with any wealth, they're only going to convert to Islam and donate it all to Hamas anyway.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

All this hand wringing about revenge porn has made me come around to Nick's point of view. Minnesotans are Scandinavian incel prudes. There is no reason a tit pic should be classified as pornography.

But there it is, in the statute- exposed or partially exposed nipple.

The statute doesn't classify it as pornography. The statute is about nonconsensual dissemination of "private sexual images." "Revenge porn" is the colloquial reference.

617.261 NONCONSENSUAL DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGES.​

Subdivision 1.Crime.​

It is a crime to intentionally disseminate an image of another person who is depicted in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part, when[...]

(e) "Intimate parts" means the genitals, pubic area, or anus of an individual, or if the individual is female, a partially or fully exposed nipple.

Eta: that definition should have "and" instead of the second "or.". Geez.