State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Rekieta, Kayla Rekieta, April Imholte

[Pentamidine]

So the argument isn't that the footage is inaccurate, it's that is came from a reuploader?

Yeah, that's the argument from the original motion from Nick. His argument is that the cop lied, because he said he watched a video that had been "taken off of Nick's social media". The cop meant that Nick had taken the videos down. Nick claimed that the cop meant that he got a copy of the video from Nick's social media, which would be a lie because Nick privated the video. It would be a MATERIAL lie because if the video was uploaded by someone else, it COULD have been altered.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've yet to see a lawyer say that it has a reasonable chance at success. I'm not counting Barnes here because every time Barnes talks about Nick's case he changes a bunch of facts around in his retelling, while Nate/Sean/LEEEGULL MOIINDSETT are all giving opinions after reading the motions and documentation live.

It DOES seem like retarded language smithing probably shouldn't work against some 80iq cop's probable cause affidavit.

EDIT: Is the section about the guns just in there to make the warrant stuff look less retarded by comparison? Is it like Diddler Dax aka Juju the cow (a man who likes to get fucked in the ass while dressed as a cow) surrounding himself with ugly deformed pedophiles so he looks less bad?

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

There is still nothing that shows material differences between the videos. The presence of an overlay doesn't mean the video was edited, and (re)compression doesn't magically add elements to a video.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

So the argument isn't that the footage is inaccurate, it's that came from a reuploader?

Can the state subpoena Google for the original clip and put this flimsy argument to bed?

Also, I'm not a burgerperson or lawyer, but the tone here does not seem very judicial. I can't imagine this going over well.

"The argument" is what they put on the last page: they are saying the cop is a LIAR and therefore not only should the warrant get tossed due to intent to mislead the Judge but (eventually, even if not now) nothing he says about anything should be trusted.

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

The argument is silly. Aaron's video mentioned it being deleted or whatever off the internet. The cop then said he managed to review the video that had been taken off of Nick's YouTube and Rumble. Obviously he has viewed it or a copy elsewhere.

The cop would need to inform if the video showed signs of being materially altered. However he placed in time by referencing the appeals ruling and finding the same thing Aaron's clip showed.

It's a bit like saying the cop should have added to the document a statement he had never seen Nick take a line of coke. Sure, it's accurate, but it is also irrelevant. Unless the cop sees signs of manipulation, he doesn't need to mention it.

Also they use circular logic. They need to show it was a lie and the lie made a difference. Their approach is kind of "Well, he lied, so it must have made a difference, if not, why lie"

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

Insulting the police officer on made up bullshit probably isn't going to fly. In fact, it very well could make the prosecutor dig in. Its a small area so the prosecutor probably knows every single police officer in the area by name. They absolutely know a detective by name. If Nick pulled his head out of his ass, or maybe its his lawyer not realizing how much "small town' mentality kicks in here, this isn't like insulting a cop in a big city. These people know eachother, they have been to eachothers cook outs, they are as close to friends as you can get and still maintain a professional distance. If they even bother to do that.

I don't think the prosecution has a choice now but to crucify Rekieta. If the detective's integrity is now at stake that effects every other case he's ever been involved with.

 

[Gehenna]

I don't think the prosecution has a choice now but to crucify Rekieta. If the detective's integrity is now at stake that effects every other case he's ever been involved with.

Its not. The reaction from any judge or prosecutor is going to be a flat "Prove it" and not much more. Its more that some out of town lawyer representing the black sheep of the community is now insulting one of their good old boys. Its a damn good way to turn reluctant prosecution into a legal lynching.

 

[PyrrhicRustle]

Also they use circular logic. They need to show it was a lie and the lie made a difference. Their approach is kind of "Well, he lied, so it must have made a difference, if not, why lie"

It is the funniest part, if the court is allowed to just outright ask if there was any difference between the videos worth throwing the affidavit out for, what the fuck do they say to that?

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Does the video being reupload by someone else materially change the fact for search warrant? On trial sure there could be lot stricter standards, but for search warrant? And they are not even arguing any specific long list of changes compared to original...

The argument that is most convincing is 'no'. There was enough evidence in Cog's video for the police to justify a warrant for a closer inspection.

Nick is arguing that the possibility there COULD be differences and the grammatical uncertainty of '...taken off of the Defendant's channel...' entitles him to the highest level of deference that interprets everything against the State in the WORST possible light.

Nick wants the State to prove the negative that it DIDN'T lie while he throws up a flurry of legal platitudes to try to manufacture consent from the judge.

Follow up:

Nick's own videos have this feature enabled. Look at the circular logo in the bottom right corner:

Annotations on:
View attachment 6397750

Annotations off:
View attachment 6397751

Try it yourself:
Click the gear icon and toggle annotations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aevGXcyk00

In fact, I don't see a watermark on Cog's reupload. Maybe he turned the feature off, but, it just proves the video itself was not altered at all:
View attachment 6397758

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygNmTFByzHI

The screenshot from the video with the overlay was probably from a screen capture from YouTube by the boomer police who did jot know they could download YouTube videos directly, or an embedded media link in PPT.

 

[Owlbear]

There is still nothing that shows material differences between the videos. The presence of an overlay doesn't mean the video was edited, and (re)compression doesn't magically add elements to a video.

If you look at the "RL" logos on the record, they are at different angles. That probably indicates that Cog's upload cut off a few seconds at the beginning or maybe something as small as the number of milliseconds in the timestamp actually being different. It's telling that this is the screenshot they chose to argue their point, though - they had 4 hours of video to use to find a difference, and they gave us the record player presumably because the rest of the video is otherwise too close.

 

[Accidental Protege]

This brief reads like it's trying to confuse the Judge into throwing up his hands and saying "okay fine, I don't understand how this here You-tube technology works, so you must have a point." If I were the Judge, I would be insulted. It appears to be relying on his ignorance as a boomer.

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

It is the funniest part, if the court is allowed to just outright ask if there was any difference between the videos worth throwing the affidavit out for, what the fuck do they say to that?

It also wouldn't matter. This is a strawman argument essentially. The idea that the cop needs to authenticate it beyond a reasonable doubt in order to include it in a search warrant application. His obligation is to place it in time and have no reason to believe it was altered. That's all. He needs to place it in time because if the video was from say 6 months ago it's no longer relevant for probable cause.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Reviewing the screenshots in Nick's motion response, it does appear that he is correct about the source channel for Pomplun's video. However, I still agree that it meets the level of 'probable cause'--even with the 'altered' video, and it is enough to bring Nick to the table to explain himself.

As has been explained many times, the video is not "altered". The Barneswalker is claiming that Cog manually added his watermark (FALSE).

The logo is part of the YouTube UI. If you use download tools such as yt-dlp, the logo will NOT appear.

In fact, Cog proved this point by DISABLING the logo overlay on his video. If you watch the below video, there isn't a logo anymore:

THEN (image taken from Rekieta's latest brief)



NOW:

Would you look at that? Same timestamp as the above screenshot (2:50:27), but the logo in the bottom right is GONE!



Imagine your lawyer being SUCH A FUCKING MORON that he gives Cog a W like that.

By the way what the fuck is up with the Barneswalker's comma usage? The below sentence directly after the screenshot above has two completely superfluous commas.

The clip embedded in the PowerPoint Presentation, did not come from Defendant’s YouTube channel, as is evident from the screenshot taken, at the same elapsed point in time of the video that the state uploaded on August 30, 2024.

EMBARRASSING!

This appears to have been INCORRECT, WRONG, and just another case of the insidious Kiwi Farms

lies

. MCRO, as always, was just late to update. The document is available here:
https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojh...la-rekieta-april-imholte.191978/post-19296996

Interesting, the filing time remains after the judge's "taken under advisement" showed up in MCRO. I doubt that matters other than to confuse me.

To clarify, people noticed the new entry "taken under advisement" in the afternoon MN time on Friday and the brief was only filed at 8pm local time and didn't appear until (I guess) today.

The judge or clerk probably assumed that no brief was being filed.

That entry being added to the case may have been a cause of the delay, I don't really know. The way MCRO works is kind of opaque.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

As has been explained many times, the video is not "altered". The Barneswalker is claiming that Cog manually added his watermark (FALSE).

Altered was in scare quotes for the same reason you use them. Even acknowledging the points Nick has technically correct, my position is that he still loses. He is attempting to make a mountain out a mole hill.

As for the UI channel branding 'watermark' in the screenshot, the inclusion is on the boomer police for taking a screen shot of YouTube (cursor is present' or using a direct media embed I PPT. Boomer understanding of tech gave Nick the toehold for his retarded argument, but I still maintain that it is easily refuted.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

It is the funniest part, if the court is allowed to just outright ask if there was any difference between the videos worth throwing the affidavit out for, what the fuck do they say to that?

He could have in the hearing if the Barneswalking moron had adequately articulated his point.

Unfortunately, the Barneswalker mixed up the Cog watermark part of his motion and the Aaron part of his motion. He implied it was Aaron's video which Aaron edited in some way.

That would be EXTREMELY dishonest if it was intentional, but I don't think it's even being intentionally dishonest. I simply don't get the impression he's a particularly intelligent guy.

It's also possible that Rekieta is feeding him the arguments to use and he doesn't quite comprehend them because they don't really make sense.

Altered was in scare quotes for the same reason you use them. Even acknowledging the points Nick has technically correct, my position is that he still loses. He is attempting to make a mountain out a mole hill.

As for the UI channel branding 'watermark' in the screenshot, the inclusion is on the boomer police for taking a screen shot of YouTube (cursor is present' or using a direct media embed I PPT. Boomer understanding of tech gave Nick the toehold for his retarded argument, but I still maintain that it is easily refuted.

The only thing I can think of is that the goal is to say "HE LIED. There needs to be a hearing because HE LIED." and then go on a fishing expedition once they actually have the guy on the stand in the hopes he says something they can use.

Or maybe they're actually so delusional that the whole thing will be thrown out because of a watermark on a screenshot.

The thing is the other video they have doesn't have the watermark, I don't really see what they are arguing. To accept their argument would mean that any picture or video taken off of social media could not be used at all.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

My real question is, was this filing better than filing nothing? Other than including some relevant bits of duh physical ebidence (which probably should have been brought in during the hearing, unless they were and I missed it), what is really gained?

Guess it's hard to evaluate now, and we will see with the judge's decision.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

I hope they break this nigga on the wheel.

Is his argument that because it’s not the true and honest livestream from Nick’s channels that it’s severely edited?

 

[talk talk talk]

The reply brief has showed up on MCRO.

 

[PyrrhicRustle]

Is his argument that because it’s not the true and honest livestream from Nick’s channels that it’s severely edited?

No, they’re not even claiming it’s materially different, their argument is that the detective lied and said he watched the stream from one place versus another, identical mirror, and him lying makes the affidavit and warrant invalid.

 

[Midnight Energy Drink]

With this logic if the police bases their search warrant on a picture someone received on their phone they have to check if it was received through MMS, Whatsapp, etc. because it could be compressed.

'How could be THE picture? You honor, pictures sent through the MMS are COMPRESSED and RESIZED to save the bandwidth. It wasn't THE picture. The pig has LIED. The warrant was improper.'

Completely Rekietarded.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

I genuinely hope these shenanigans cause the prosecutor to beat him to death with law books. Maybe knock some legal knowledge into his fucking head.