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
Give me all the alarm clock stickers, but this basically cements Rekieta’s “heel turn” on his “reporting people to the police is gay, and being a libertarian is baste and red-suppositoried” act, right?

He’s just constantly doing, saying, or posting things that are complete hypocritical 180-degree heelturns on things that he had supposedly upheld and claimed as his principals when his “online career” was on the rise, and a lot of those supposed principals were what drew many of his subscribers to him to begin with. Now that he’s in the spotlight and his ass is the one in the defendants chair, he does a “rules for thee but not for me” about face when it comes to broadcasting his trial, reporting people to the police, or even just basic moral standards like “not bringing drugs into your house where your children live”.

I shouldn’t be surprised, and I’m basically preaching to the converted here. Like @AnOminous has said many times in the past, “If Nick’s mouth is open, it’s either to lie or to suck cock”.
Nick is Ralph now, he just does things that immediately satiate his id and then try to justify it after with technicalities
Exactly! It's not just his being a hypocrite, but he also tries to pretend he's an ACTUAL lawyer (instead of a non-practicing one) and play these semantic word-games. I don't know which one irritates me the most.
 
No, it would be for the prosecution to prove you should have reasonably known - this isn't an affirmative defense for the defendant. It's a point that the prosecution would have to prove as part of their case.

Your point about an automatic expectation doesn't cover this off, because if you receive and pass on a nude that you don't know the providence of you might reasonably believe that it was porn. Whether it is or isn't is immaterial, it's whether the prosecution can prove you reasonably should have known it wasn't authorized for distribution. That's contextual, not automatic.
Then I cannot wait for Kayla explain, in detail, how her full frontal nudes landed on Aarons phone and why he was not allowed to share them and how it was impossible for him to misunderstand her intentions.

Nick will be coughing up blood by the end of all the cases his involved in. And then its only a matter of time before it happens again because he will still have the potential unannounced CPS visits at his house and the whiteass nigger can't keep his nose, house or children clean if his life depended on it.
 
Nick Rekieta, Free Speech Absolutist... Let's give him a round of applause, everyone!
Aaron has a right to talk about his life, even if it upsets Nick the thin-skinned faggot who can dish it out but not take it. In Nick’s preferred America, nobody could write a memoir or give interviews about their own lives without catching charges.

Nicholas, your time would be more wisely spent figuring out how to reach a settlement with Montagraph and make amends for your literal slander. Or don’t. Either way, the financially ruinous path you dove into head first disqualifies you from having a credible opinion on this topic.
Nick would never say that he “always liked being a Free Speech Absolutist” what he actually said was he is “probably an allegedly Free Speech Abolitionist”. Ipso facto by the law of Linguistic Faggotry he is therefore Not Guilty of all crimes past and future. In accordance with the Right of the Lord from hither on all Scandinavian newlywed prudes shall be Balldo’d, gagged and bound to a St. Andrew’s Cross immortalized in the center of Spicer, MN in perpetuity until the end of time. The ‘Day of Doubt’ Memorial shall serve as a dire warning to any and all of the unwashed masses for daring to entertain the potential for an existence of a reality in which Lord Balldeaux of the esteemed Cuckolde Horne Arboretum & Rope Estate is anything less than an “aggressively psychosexually monogamous paragon of temperance”.
IMG_7521.jpeg
Furthermore by the Balldeaux Lord’s decree ‘The exalted Libertine aristocracy shall have no infringement nor responsibility imposed upon them ever, up to and including; any and all financial obligation to provide the humanitarian aid necessary for the preservation of the indigenous illiterate savage population of his ancestral address, the nomadic natives of the Kitchen-Hamper Spaghetti-O grazing grounds of the Balldeaux Estates.
 
Last edited:
When he snitched to the police to defend Lady Balldo's honor using nakedly unconstitutional Minnesota commie retard case law that is antithetical to the first amendment was that the last couple of principles that he had left to betray? Does he have anything left? It's truly incredible.
A few lawyers should do a stream with Barnes about the blatantly unconstitutional MN law and discuss how only the lowest of lowest snitch faggots would use this type of law to go after a fellow freedom loving American citizen.
 
Give me all the alarm clock stickers, but this basically cements Rekieta’s “heel turn” on his “reporting people to the police is gay, and being a libertarian is baste and red-suppositoried” act, right?
Right but not like that will stop him from posing like that and evidently he has plenty of fans dumb/deluded enough to overlook the swinging/child-dosing so believing his LARP will be well within their purview.
 
Then I cannot wait for Kayla explain, in detail, how her full frontal nudes landed on Aarons phone and why he was not allowed to share them and how it was impossible for him to misunderstand her intentions.

Nick will be coughing up blood by the end of all the cases his involved in. And then its only a matter of time before it happens again because he will still have the potential unannounced CPS visits at his house and the whiteass nigger can't keep his nose, house or children clean if his life depended on it.
It wouldn't all be that difficult, if the Signal chat members were Aaron, April, Nick and Kayla, their testimony that it was a private group chat would probably suffice. In addition to the fact Kayla hasn't published, as far as I am aware, any frontal nudes any where that is public.

Plus, Aaron has hampered his own ability to argue that he thought he could share them by denying she ever sent him nudes when questioned by the police.

Then you could even make the point that when he showed Geno the picture he was careful not to show them on his stream.

If Aaron had shut his mouth, let his lawyer talk, and come up with some schtick about her being a swinger, Nick being a swinger, and then posting lewds on locals... He maybe had a shot at swaying a juror, but he's fucked it.
 
The question isn’t just whether she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but also whether Aaron believed that she might not consent.
The timeline seems relevant here. On 26 May Kayla sent Aaron a message asking him not to continue discussing the polycule publicly and to refrain from contacting her family. On 27 May, Aaron sent the image to Geno while on air, which made public both the fact of its existence fact that he'd shared it.

While Kayla didn't explicitly say not to share her nudes, I can see the prosecution arguing that when he sent Geno the image, Aaron was already aware that Kayla expected anything and everything related to the polycule to remain private because she had expressed that to him the day before. Whether that's a sustainable argument remains to be seen but it's one I would expect to be made.
 
Last edited:
I disagree that the matter is settled
Did not say it was. However, the highest court in the state has given its interpretation about negligence, etc. So that is the direction in MN as of now.

and think it will take more cases to test the outer reaches of the extremely broad law.
Testing the outer edges is not required for a law to be enforceable.

The whole area of law is largely untested, or slowly being tested. But both Constitutionality and reasonable expectations of privacy by a subject have been addressed in case law or defined in statutes in at least a few places:

Constitutionality:

The Texas Criminal Court of Appeals in Ex Parte Jones, 625 SE 3d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (unpublished), on a de novo review, reversed an appellate court finding a revenge porn statute somewhat similar to MN's unconstitutional. The decision is unpublished but the concurrence, which agreed with the majority on the Constitutionality question (i.e., their revenge porn statute was determined to be Constitutional). (Interestingly, the Texas statute requires more confirmation of consent than Minnesota statute, though requires a showing of harm.)

Statute in Jones:
A person violates this statute
if:
(1) Without the effective consent of the depicted person, the person intentionally
discloses visual material depicting
another person with the person’s intimate parts
exposed or engaged in sexual conduct;
(2) The visual material was obtained by the person or created under circumstances in which the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the visual material would remain private;
(3) The disclosure of the visual material causes harm to the depicted person; and
(4) The disclosure of the visual material reveals the identity of the depicted person in any manner.31
“‘Intimate parts’ means ‘the naked genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female
nipple of a person.’”32

Illinois, in People v. Austin, 155 N.E.3d 439, cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 233 (Oct. 5, 2020), applied an intermediate (not strict) scrutiny standard, and found similarly to MN in Casillas, that privacy is at least as important as free speech. As one article describes,

The court reinforced its holding that section 11-23.5 is a privacy regulation aimed at protecting purely private information, rebuking Austin’s attempt to argue that once an image is shared, it ceases to be a private matter absent express assurances that it will remain confidential.197 Instead, given the nature of such intimate images as purely private material, the court found there is an implicit duty on the part of the recipient to keep such images private.198 By characterizing the statute as a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction, the Illinois Supreme Court afforded the privacy interests at stake equal weight to the free speech concerns advanced by the defendant.199

In Indiana, the Constitutionality of the following statute was found Constitutional in State v. Katz, 179 N.E.3d 431, 439 (Ind. 2022).

Indiana’s revenge porn statute provides:
(d) A person who:
(1) knows or reasonably should know that an individual depicted in an intimate image does not consent to the distribution of the intimate
image; and
(2) distributes the intimate image;
commits distribution of an intimate image, a Class A misdemeanor.
However, the offense is a Level 6 felony if the person has a prior unrelated
conviction under this section.

On a reasonable expectation of privacy:

In State v. VanBuren, 2018 VT 95, 210 Vt. 293, 214 A.3d 791, the Vermont Supreme Court, in a case in which the current girlfriend of a man posted nudes to his Facebook of his ex, who had sent them to him (after their relationship, for whatever reason). The Vermont Supreme Court held the subject had no expectation of privacy - but specifically because she and the man were no longer involved when she sent the pic. As one article describes,

The court reasoned that the Complainant and Coon were not in a relationship when the photos were sent.85 The court does not give a
definition as to what a reasonable expectation of privacy is in this sense, but rather says that “[p]rivacy here clearly does not mean the exclusion of all others, but it does mean the exclusion of everyone but a trusted few.”86 In the court’s eyes, if you’re sending naked photos to someone they must be in the “trusted few” or else you compromise your expectation of privacy in them entirely.
That^ would suggest that even Vermont would find sharing a nude photo only with an intimate group ("a trusted few") would give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy of that photo.

Note: Vermont statute language at the time:
A person violates this section if he or she knowingly discloses a visual image of an
identifiable person who is nude or who is engaged in sexual conduct, without his or her consent, with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the person depicted, and the disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm.62

North Carolina has taken this view of a reasonable expectation of privacy and incorporated it into statutory law. In NC, the revenge porn statute (14-190.5A), reasonable expectation of privacy is defined in the language of the statute:
Reasonable expectation of privacy. – When a depicted person has consented to the disclosure of an image within the context of a personal relationship and the depicted person reasonably believes that the disclosure will not go beyond that relationship.
(emphasis added)

Again again, it's an undeveloped area, but looking around, it seems a solid position that if you know the subject, received a nude pic within a personal and limited group context, and don't ask for permission to share it, courts may find you had reason to know that there was not consent for dissemination of that image beyond the small personal group, and that the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy of the image they shared with you/the "trusted few."



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
No one said anything about explicit consent (though of course the MN Supreme Court alluded to it in footnote 9 ("how hard could it be?") but did not say that it was required, and it is not. Also see the NC statute referred to above for a potential indicator of the direction of these concepts.

And I disagree that person C is in danger of some crazy insane prosecution going after someone trying to do good. A reasonable response is that C should not have reasonably known that B would not consent to C's actions to try to help B by reaching out to A to take down the photo. And in that example, it's sharing back to the original poster, which, though not (of course) addressed in the statute, can cause no harm bc that person already has the image. Yes, the statute is not perfectly drafted, but let's be reasonable.

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...."

View attachment 6374113

(Twitter | Archive)
Hell hath no fury like a cuck scorned.

full nudes to thousands
?
 
Last edited:
a couple of nick’s local whine moms are streaming now, Nick is calling all whine moms.https://youtube.com/@prettyantisocialpod
Going full Tumblr and crying muh harassment now Rackets? I seem to remember another abusive cuck doing that. Think his name was Ron Toye.
Nick (aka Cuck) Rekieta is performing his grande PR tour based on this patheticly concocted victim narrative. That’s clear, as he “randomly” appears in chats on various seemingly preplanned streams across YouTube today. It’s so obvious these are planned interviews, messages & calls on Nicks part, all to try & paint the exaggerated charges he filed on Aaron as perfectly true & accurate. Hilarious that someone just upthread mentioned that Gino is breaking stride with this manufactured bullshit:
Geno's snaking on Balldo and the Qover. Keanu is hollering in the background like the cunt she is.
For a better time, watch with KB on MLC:
Thanks for sharing this. Wonder if it will lend towards the truth of Nick’s impetus of the charges vs Nicks PR tour version. I haven’t watched the wine mom interview with Keanu yet either, because her voice honestly grates, & it’s around three hours long. Drugs really fucked up Nicks brain if he thought this little tour of his would either make it under the radar or actually help his ridiculously trumped up case against Aaron.
 
Ron Soye is a stupid, contemptible, chinless cuck of a man. I guess I'd have to see the stream to understand why against that you'd start to dislike Nick.
Because it was done in a manor of fire and brimstone, nick was farming superchats/clout/attention with "rightous condemnation"

In a more developed terms I dont like parasocial relationships and its fitting that I think nick has gone waaay past toye at this point.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Dean Pentel
Imagine being Nick's attorney and watching your client continuously digging his hole deeper and deeper.
That's dollar signs for him, not a hole. I just hope he got Nick to sign a letter acknowledging he was told to STFU so he has something when Nick complains about him being a walking malpractice factory. The conviction will trigger spergatory.
 
Drugs really fucked up Nicks brain if he thought this little tour of his would either make it under the radar or actually help his ridiculously trumped up case against Aaron.
It's designed to spin a narrative for the court of public opinion, not a court of law. It's just a black PR campaign against Aaron.
 
Back