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.

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

If Aaron had been sent a photo with a wardrobe malfunction and Aaron forwarded it to Geno, EVEN IF HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY REALIZE WHAT WAS SHOWING IN THE PICTURE AT THE TIME, he could plausibly have still been in the same situation as he is now for allegedly sharing a full nude!

Except that the MN Supreme Court has said otherwise. I agree with @Strix454 that this is a lot of lifting by a court to stretch "intentionally," to knowing the pic was of an intimate area of the body, but they said what they said.

It goes to reasonable doubt, which is all Aaron needs. Whether the polycule existed or not, whether it was exclusive within the four of them, etc, all of that matters.

They can't just brush off how the photo came to be in Aaron's possession.

It's clear she sent it; that's in the complaint. And rereading the complaint seems clear she sent it to their group. But there were just 4 people in that group, not 400, and it was 4 people in some kind of complex intimate relationship(s) (even if just very close friends, or two swinging couples, or whatever). No one else was in that group.

And IF they had the auto destruct feature on/ no idea if that can be changed individually, but it doesn't matter - if that was the agreed setting it's clear anything sent was meant to be private and unshareable, and IF that's the case, Aaron absolutely knew she didn't consent to further dissemination.

If someone sends a nude to me they received from someone else, I could argue that bereft of any evidence to the contrary, I have every reason to think this nude was shared with consent.

If you argued that you'd be doing too much, and also too little. The statute requires that the sharer knew or reasonably should have known that the subject did not consent. Not quite the same as requiring reasonable belief they did.

The question is the starting reasonable assumption, which varies depending on circumstances. If your friend sends you a picture of his wife who is divorcing him while calling her a whore, and then you re-share, it's a bit hard to rebut that you should not reasonably have known she didn't consent. If you find some random's nude on an image-sharing site and know nothing about these people, then showing you reasonably should have known of nonconsent is harder. And within that situation, facts still matter: if it's clearly a peeper shot of the mayor's Orthodox wife, you are closer to reasonably knowing no consent; if it's a random selfie by whomever, you are very far away from "reasonably knowing the subject didn't consent" (though if there's a text overlay saying "for your eyes only - don't you dare share!!!!", you're in a less-good position, though probably a stretch). Examples aren't perfect, and again there's very little out there in MN on this, but I threw them in to illustrate the standard and that it is drafted in a way that should be highly fact- and relative relationship-specific.

 

[northstar747]

He is basically a late 80's televangelist. The sex scandal, the drugs, the hubris...it's all there.

The stream where he was denoucing ron toye, gave me that vibes and soured me on him.

 

[Heed Not]

It's year of the World Wide Web +34 now. Revenge pornography laws shouldn't exist unless the photograph or video has  produced without your consent. People married to high-profile (relatively) individuals that are sending extramarital lewd photographs should have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Nor should anyone sending nude photographs over electronic communications. Kayla's a 40-something year old woman, not some high schooler that's more hormone than grey matter doing something stupid.

 

[Henri Barbusse]

The Court in Casillas: "Second, a defendant must “intentionally” disseminate the image. Minn. Stat. § 617.261, subd. 1. This mens rea requirement means that a defendant must knowingly and voluntarily disseminate a private sexual image; negligent, accidental, or even reckless distributions are not proscribed. This specific intent requirement further narrows the statute and keeps it from “target[ing] broad categories of speech.” Muccio, 890 N.W.2d at 928."

What would reckless distribution mean here? That seems like a very vague wording unless there's an established meaning.
Though I think it's not going to trial. Both the state proving it rose to the level of a felony and Aaron proving he has reasonable expectation that sharing the image was allowed have enough obstacles in the way that meeting halfway with a plea deal on gross misdemeanor seems sensible for both parties.

I don't know man. Pat Robertson used donations for the Rwanda genocide to fund using 700 Club planes to move blood diamonds out of Africa.

And Liberty University, holy shit that is a weird black hole of kinky sex, crazy dirty money in the Bush Whitehouse, etc. A private university had a deal to provide aviation fuel to the US Air Force at an insane markup for taxpayers.

Nick wishes he could have pulled scams like this.

And that's why you have to respect them more than Nick. When they grifted, they grifted bigger than Nick and had more long-term success.

 

[Procrastinhater]

finish off any chance of him having a reputation as a respectable person once and for all.

Lmfao I think that boats already sailed, hit an iceberg, and gone down like Our Wife on the Toe Man with all passengers (at Hedo 2).
Agreed with the general sentiment though, Aaron fighting this shit would be Kino. I'd throw in a hundred for the lawsuit if it means Lord Balldo is declared a cuck in court records. Watching Nick and Barnes squirm to explain why this doesn't violate the 1st would be an added bonus but mainly it's just more things for the Balldo Cuck to Larson himself in the face over which is always good.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

What would reckless distribution mean here? That seems like a very vague wording unless there's an established meaning.

Reckless usually means careless when you have some duty, more than a one-off error but more like (in some contexts) systemic failure of reasonable prudence.

Example 1: news publisher has a developed process for pixelating intimate parts, including both technical and legal training. Over a holiday weekend with skeleton staff, an intern fucks up and misses a background body or the tip of a penis and the editor/checker also misses it. Site takes down the image/reposts edited version as soon as discovered and publishes an apology/revamps staffing model = mistake or negligence.

Example 2: news publisher, despite frequently republishing leaked images including naked people, guts its staff of anyone with editing skills and anyone who understands what is allowed or not; publishes photos in whatever form they are received, relying on stringers they don't employ to send in edited images or just doesn't train employees on how to pixelate/block or what should be edited; and has no QC = reckless (arguably).

Though I think it's not going to trial. Both the state proving it rose to the level of a felony and Aaron proving he has reasonable expectation that sharing the image was allowed have enough obstacles in the way that meeting halfway with a plea deal on gross misdemeanor seems sensible for both parties.

Agree. Aaron doesn't want this fight, and the "dissemination" was one image to one single person (as far as we know), who did not do anything further with it, so the county probably won't want to expend the resources on it. Juice not worth the squeeze unless someone is cruising for news.

 

[Melty Butter]

The statute says "who is OR MAY BECOME a witness."

Thanks for that. I'm going to do my best to keep track of what he tweets about potential witnesses. So far:

As well as the one I highlighted previously.

....

Separately, I scrubbed some old streams to see if anything was relevant to today's happenings. This is from 3/14/2018,

They were painfully cute. I haven't seen it clipped but perhaps I missed it. Stream is here. Kayla comes on at 2:05:50 for 25 min.

Highlights:
- They sing together. I believe the song is from Rent.
- They debate who is the better Christian
- Kayla talks about their eldest son's tall height and names him.
- They were training the second youngest (the one who tested positive) to call Kayla "m' Queen" - a joke from The Lion King. She would have been 2-3 years old at the time.
- Before Kayla came on, Nick mentioned he enjoys listening to the podcast The Bible For Normal People.

Edit to Add: I forgot to say that there's a mess of clothes behind him and he mentions (early on) that the whole house is messy.

 

[The Wokest]

View attachment 6373866View attachment 6373867View attachment 6373868
They were painfully cute. I haven't seen it clipped but perhaps I missed it. Stream is here. Kayla comes on at 2:05:50 for 25 min.

Go to 1:53:32 on that same video, replace the name Maddox with Balldo

 

[Charlie Delicious]

https://www.youtube.com/live/seBKP5CWidA?si=hKIlZhiqkZynFtad

Nick called into NLO. It's live now so when it's done if someone can grab the timestamp.

 

[Third World Aristocrat]

Rekieta appeared on the Nobody Like Onions Stream.

EDIT: Rekieta already went away. It seems backward/rewind is disabled on the stream...

I joined the stream just before Nick's interview ended. From what I've seen on Twitter, Aaron's A-Log "Nobody Likes Onions" was streaming about Aaron's revenge porn case. Nick (who says he doesn't watch any streams about himself because he doesn't have time) appeared in the chat, started sending superchats, and ended up having a brief interview.

Here are some screenshots I got from the X user @Crakieta:

Spoiler: NLO Nick's in the chat

(Referring to Aaron)

(Referring to Sean)

If someone watched the actual stream, feel free to correct my understanding.

@Balldo's Gate added a local archive of the Rekieta interview clip here:

A video of what is supposed to be the full call has been posted

Sorry for the stupid intro timer, for some reason the moron posting it did a premiere instead of simply posting the clip and added things to the clip. I guess this is what passes for humor in the "Dabbleverse"

Local archive:
View attachment 6374185

Spoiler: YT embed

 

[ChromaQuack]

Rekieta already went away.

I wonder did he go away shortly after this stream was first posted here? the timing seems suspicious to me.

Does the F5 button consent to you going that hard on it, Nicky?

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

The basic assumption here is that all sharing of nude pictures by someone other than the person in the picture is only legal when consent for the action is given.

That's wrong though - the statute states that someone reasonably believes that the images were shared with consent.

Context matters here, of course, but without any other information you would absolutely be able to argue that you had a reasonable belief it was done with consent - porn is ubiquitous, and we don't require some written trail of consent to share that.

If it was a picture of someone, who your friend told you sent their nudes to him after a tinder date, then the context would suggest no consent - good luck to the courts to prove you knew that.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

EDIT: Rekieta already went away. It seems backward/rewind is disabled on the stream...

Standard practice for Melton. I don't know why he does it, he's not an intelligent person.

FYI Melton was the one who leaked the unredacted documents which showed that it was Nick's pastor, church childhood teacher (or whatever she was called), and sister-in-law had reported him

Did Rekieta have those documents at that time? Was he the one who leaked them to Melton?

Interesting thought to ponder.

Except that the MN Supreme Court has said otherwise. I agree with @Strix454 that this is a lot of lifting by a court to stretch "intentionally," to knowing the pic was of an intimate area of the body, but they said what they said.

I disagree that the matter is settled and think it will take more cases to test the outer reaches of the extremely broad law. Even accepting that "intentionally disseminate" means knowing what the picture contains, it's easy to come up with ridiculous hypotheticals that fall under the law

1. Person A posts a photo of themselves to social media with Person B. Unbeknownst to Person A, Person B had a wardrobe malfunction that makes the image fall under the statute's definitions of "intimate".
2. Person C, who is not close with Person A or Person B, sends Person D a screenshot of the post, telling Person D to contact Person A to tell them to take the photo down.

Even if you argue Person A does not fall under the statute because the dissemination was not "intentional", Person C is at risk because they did not obtain explicit consent from Person B to do so

 

[Goku 1000000 O]

Nick (who says he doesn't watch any streams about himself because he doesn't have time) appeared in the chat…

I just realized, this is the same thing Sargon said when his cow arc began and IBS was still kicking.

I swear to god I’ve even seen Nick do that stupid finger guns pose too in a shitty suit.

Hell they’re even similarly obtuse when discussing their drama. Plus they both abuse/abused coke. Maybe Carl is the curse bringer!

 

[ThePhoenix]

Why the fuck doesn't he allow pausing/rewinds etc? I've never seen anyone do that, didn't even know it was an option.

 

[Self-cutting-gurl]

a couple of nick’s local whine moms are streaming now, Nick is calling all whine moms.https://youtube.com/@prettyantisocialpod

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

The question is the starting reasonable assumption, which varies depending on circumstances.

Apologies for my sloppy explanation, but yeah this is precisely the point - and for the reasons you explain, the threat of there being this chain of non-consenting sharers unaware of their committing a crime is basically irrelevant.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Initial clip from Twitter:

Nick Rekieta threatens Aaron with CRIMINAL CHARGES for "harassment" of April, if not others in the polycule, because Aaron revealed the details of the polycule on his show.

REKIETA WANTS AARON JAILED FOR BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON THE POLYCULE!

"...in my opinion, he's gone well beyond the level of harassment. If everybody's noticed, I've only recently started saying ANYTHING, but we have been exceptionally quiet, intentionally so, none of, uh, none of, you know, our lives were geared to be out in the public like this, and um, having this one person routinely say false things over and over and over, and vindictively and viciously do it...."

(Twitter | Archive)

 

[Peace Through Power]

"...in my opinion, he's gone well beyond the level of harassment. If everybody's noticed, I've only recently starting ANYTHING, but we have been exceptionally quiet, intentionally so, none of, uh, none of, you know, our lives were geared to be out in the public like this, and um, having this one person routinely say false things over and over and over, and vindictively and viciously do it...."

I had no idea that you could go to jail for talking about someone on your stream. I'm sure glad Nick has never done that himself

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I don't see these idiots being able to transfer a photo from one phone to another, so it suggests someone who was not Kayla took it on Kayla's phone.

That's more or less what I think. The evidence he did it to harass rather than that he's just an idiot is pretty scant. His main issue on a plea is how seriously the prosecutor is taking it that he has a history of this kind of dumb shit.

Yeah, I've asked two or three times about it and haven't been pointed back to that. I'd assumed it was a pic he took when with her or she took and sent to him but people keep saying group message. But Signal =/= necessarily group message. Maybe he took it with her phone then she sent it to him. Or was one she'd had from some time before or taken professionally and sent to him*. Still nothing saying it was a group message.

* And if it was from the series of lingerie pics she posted to Locals - but nude instead of in lingerie, that would support that she did have a different sense of privacy about a fully nude photo vs a suggestive one.

Two notes:

1) Keanu described the image as a 'naked outfit-of-the-day' post. I imagine it was something like the below:



2) Keanu and Geno said that they identified her based on the tattoo under he left breast--not her face.

3) Kayla's LOCALS lewd pictures omitted her face

Spoiler: NSFW

To me, this seems as if she was the one who took the photo with a selfie stick then, cropped it out.