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

[SaidNoOneEver]

That's the fun thing. Nick is presenting the idea that he's 100% innocent with multiple government officials working together to railroad him into a conviction. He's simultaneously presenting the idea that this grand hydra of a conspiracy will have no choice but to concede to his brilliant arguments and allow him to overturn decades of established practice vis a vis drug testing in criminal cases and probable cause for warrants. And there are people who actually believe him about both.

No Nick's defense is much simpler:

"The detective who LIED about the video also PLANTED the cocaine!"

Doesn't need a grand conspiracy, just the one dirty cop. Oh and also for everyone else on the planet to be clinically retarded.

 

[Long-time Lurker]

It really reads to me as if White is trying to invoke something like the best evidence rule, which is completely inapplicable to whether something can be used as probable cause for a warrant, a much lower standard than admissability at trial.

White is arguing that the difference between child services and the police is the different final burden of proof between the two actions, not any other difference in law (like statutes).

Trying to make sure I'm reading his argument correctly might drive me mad.

 

[AnOminous]

White is arguing that the difference between child services and the police is the different final burden of proof between the two actions, not any other difference in law (like statutes).

I thought that's what I said. It's an idiotic argument because the standards are completely different and CHIPS had incomplete information. So the lower standard for CHIPS means nothing. It's pure apples and oranges bullshit. CHIPS is not the police's commanding officer and their investigative processes are far more limited in scope.

They were also investigating two entirely different things, so it's utterly meaningless that they didn't find child abuse, when the police were primarily looking for cocaine, found guns too while acting within the scope of the warrant, and both of those presumptively establish abuse/neglect.

The police were not obligated to ignore their lying eyes and go along with what CHIPS had decided using a different standard of evidence while investigating something entirely different than the cocaine the police were seeking.

It's almost infuriatingly stupid actually. They are apparently saying that if CHIPS ever says an abuse report was unfounded, if the police pull over the dad and there are kids beaten bloody and crying in the car saying save us, they're not allowed to arrest because somehow CHIPS permanently forecloses the issue forever.

 

[Mr. Pierce]

For instance, I think the argument that the CHIPS people, without a lot of the information the police had, came to a different conclusion based on a different standard, is at best disingenuous and approaches being an insult to the intelligence of the reader.

This document, yet again, isn't clearly written. But I think the argument around the CHIPS report's dismissal is that, in excluding this information, Pomplun failed to provide the judge with an accurate rationale for his belief in the veracity of the original report.

Is this material? Probably not, unsubstantiated child services reports are still a plausible indicator of drug use.

 

[Long-time Lurker]

I thought that's what I said. It's an idiotic argument because the standards are completely different and CHIPS had incomplete information. So the lower standard for CHIPS means nothing. It's pure apples and oranges bullshit.

Ah, okay. Yes, that was what you said when I read your post again. My bad.

 

[Pelican Bones]

I thought the previous mandatory reports led to insufficient evidence of child neglect, but the warrant used the reporting of possible drug use as support for the drug probable cause. Wouldn't having probable cause for drugs change the calculus for neglect? The previous reports were insufficient, but the shit with Aaron and the powdered nose brought all of it back into play?

 

[Harvey Danger]

What a sick burn, lawyer man. Good thing nobody interested in this case other than Nick has archives of things like incriminating videos. Boy, that would be awkward.

 

[AnOminous]

This document, yet again, isn't clearly written. But I think the argument around the CHIPS report's dismissal is that, in excluding this information, Pomplun failed to provide the judge with an accurate rationale for his belief in the veracity of the original report.

Well, if that's the argument it's still absolutely fully retarded and completely irrelevant as to whether they had probable cause to search for drugs.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Rekieta wasting everyone's time and money on this hail Mary effort to get the warrant tossed smacks both of desperation and hubris. The bar for getting a warrant is ridiculously low. He'd have to show the cops basically made shit up. But since everyone saw him absolutely shit faced with powder on his nose, I am not sure how he expects to say Pomplun was inventing cause.

 

[Boingboingboingboi]

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.

this is the key issue for me. they've now doubled down on the video being altered but refuse to say in what way it was altered and how the specific alteration matters to the signing of the warrant. they also haven't produced any evidence that it was altered. it would have to be something like, "the video Pomplum watched was maliciously altered to materially represent my client's state on the stream using video editing techniques. here's a screencap of both videos side-by-side, the original and the altered version, and you can clearly see the altered version contains the white spot on the nose, while the original does not."

but he doesn't say that? why not? because the "altered" copy is fucking identical to the original!

but like, honestly, i don't see what else team balldo has to work with. the goal is to get the evidence from the warrant tossed so it doesn't surprise me that they're throwing everything they can.

 

[Mandatory User Name]

That's the fun thing. Nick is presenting the idea that he's 100% innocent with multiple government officials working together to railroad him into a conviction. He's simultaneously presenting the idea that this grand hydra of a conspiracy will have no choice but to concede to his brilliant arguments and allow him to overturn decades of established practice vis a vis drug testing in criminal cases and probable cause for warrants. And there are people who actually believe him about both.

As a Non practicing barely competent lawyer, Nick is going with the Dunning-Kruger Defence strategy.

 

[3MMA]

the tone here does not seem very judicial. I can't imagine this going over well.

It’s such an edgy, unprofessional, tone. Can’t see this doing too well, either.

scare quotes

The bitch-made scare quotes are so edge filled & the arguments are unrealistically weighted in favor of Nick. This set especially made me do a double take:

Rather than using a neutral paraphrase of the states assertions (for clarity sake,) Nick’s team writes as if mocking the states findings & keeps wording every request with a heavy handed certainty that defies belief at this point. The court already showed their reasoning & this document ignores those findings.
Too edgy 4 court 4 U 4-Eva

My real question is, was this filing better than filing nothing?

Imo, no. The tone was faggy. It’s the faggiest filing I’ve read in ages.

is expressed rudely and unprofessionally enough that itself will probably piss off everyone who sees it.

This part where they list some of the prosecutions arguments in those edgy scare quotes again, & completely ignore what the state has responded with already, to say “clearly we have met all requirements you say we didn’t, so give us what we want,” was extra homosexual & gay. The heavy handed writing really doesn’t help Nick out. I was genuinely left wondering what they were thinking in turning this in. (I know Nick’s an insane cuck, & am guessing the lawyer is simply getting paid well enough at this point.)

But since everyone saw him absolutely shit faced with powder on his nose, I am not sure how he expects to say Pomplun was inventing cause.

Here’s a handy visual aid that shows Nick at the exact moment that he returned from his 45 minute bathroom break on the coke stream. He is gurning his teeth & if the viewer peeks up close, they can see the white powder on the tip of his nose. All signs point to coca:

 

[Gehenna]

I get what and why he is doing this but god is it stupid. There are multiple elements that -alone- would be sufficient for probable cause. You could cut half the warrant and it would still be sufficient.

 

[AnOminous]

I get what and why he is doing this but god is it stupid. There are multiple elements that -alone- would be sufficient for probable cause. You could cut half the warrant and it would still be sufficient.

You could probably make like William S. Burroughs writing Naked Lunch, cut it up with scissors, and then randomly put the pieces back together and it would be both better written than anything White has filed and still add up to probable cause.

 

[Dyn]

Nick doesn’t understand or pretends he doesn’t understand that throwing out half-baked, improbable, irrelevant, bad-faith hypotheticals based on nothing is not good lawyerin'

Isn't it? It's bad for the lawyer because you'll make the court hate you, but as a defendant is it really a bad strategy? Seems to me that demonstrating you're willing to make the trial as expensive and inconvenient and drawn-out as is humanly possible will usually end up getting you a better plea deal than you'd have ever gotten by being reasonable.

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

The warrant is fairly solid. Hence why they are left arguing about ambiguity in language and giving it the worst possible reading.

They argue over originals and copies when there is no such requirement. As long as the cop can place it in time and it doesn't look edited in some obvious way, it's fine. This idea that only an original can be used or that the cop needs to specifically say where and how they found the video and how they need to know it's an accurate copy is silly burden shifting and strawman arguments.

They need to show intentional misrepresentation or reckless disregard. In addition they then need to show it made a difference.

They have failed spectacularly on the second point, as obviously the video shows what it shows. You'd need to be extremely disingenuous to read it as a misrepresentation as well.

At best the cop wasn't ultra specific, but I haven't read it as a requirement. It's a pedantic semantics argument.

It's their right to do it. Where Nick gets shit is thinking he has some right for the public to buy these arguments.

 

[Oliver Onions]

Hrm. If the prosecutor wasn't a fan of balldo before, calling cop a corrupt liar surely will help.

Once again, the smoothbrains of Kiwi Farms fail to understand the magnitude of the 5D backgammon Nick is playing here. His plan is to make the cops hate him so his claim that the raid was motivated by the cops hating him will become retroactively true.

I am sorry you're too stupid to understand this legal masterstroke, stalker child.

The argument is retarded. It is that if they do not use the ORIGINAL video from the ORIGINAL source, you cannot trust your lying eyes about everything because HACKERS and DEEPFAKES!

It's also retarded because they keep complaining about compression and artifacting when, per Pomplun's statement, it wasn't the apparent coke on his nose that got his attention, but Nick's clearly drugged out behaviour, which Pomplun recognised based on his training (and which we all recognised based on not being fucking braindead).

I would absolutely love Nick to submit the defence that someone deepfaked a 4-hour livestream of him completely wasted to frame him, especially because he would also then have to explain why the deepfake junkie behaviour so closely matches how he has behaved on dozens of other livestreams for at least a year. This would have to be the biggest glowjob in history.

 

[DiabeticSydePhil]

Nick will end up getting his hearing anyways just because he's so combative and try to spin it as a win.

The judge already had to tell him to shut up multiple times during the omnibus so I'm sure he's thrilled to have to sit Nick down and force him to comply with the evidence portions of the original hearing.

 

[McWeaeselton]

Nick will end up getting his hearing anyways just because he's so combative and try to spin it as a win.

That's the best path for the sake of content. If the hearing is approved smug dorito eating levels will be off the charts. It will make him getting slapped down in the end that much better.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

As a Non practicing barely competent lawyer, Nick is going with the Dunning-Kruger Defence strategy.

No, it is 'volley of a thousand turds' and the 'smoke and fire' fallacy. He throws enough shit ans hopes enough sticks to make it too toxic to touch and blows enough smoke to make the judge think 'there HAS to be something here because the truth is always in the middle'.

Isn't it? It's bad for the lawyer because you'll make the court hate you, but as a defendant is it really a bad strategy? Seems to me that demonstrating you're willing to make the trial as expensive and inconvenient and drawn-out as is humanly possible will usually end up getting you a better plea deal than you'd have ever gotten by being reasonable.

The warrant is fairly solid. Hence why they are left arguing about ambiguity in language and giving it the worst possible reading.

They argue over originals and copies when there is no such requirement. As long as the cop can place it in time and it doesn't look edited in some obvious way, it's fine. This idea that only an original can be used or that the cop needs to specifically say where and how they found the video and how they need to know it's an accurate copy is silly burden shifting and strawman arguments.

They need to show intentional misrepresentation or reckless disregard. In addition they then need to show it made a difference.

They have failed spectacularly on the second point, as obviously the video shows what it shows. You'd need to be extremely disingenuous to read it as a misrepresentation as well.

At best the cop wasn't ultra specific, but I haven't read it as a requirement. It's a pedantic semantics argument.

It's their right to do it. Where Nick gets shit is thinking he has some right for the public to buy these arguments.

Nick will end up getting his hearing anyways just because he's so combative and try to spin it as a win.

The judge already had to tell him to shut up multiple times during the omnibus so I'm sure he's thrilled to have to sit Nick down and force him to comply with the evidence portions of the original hearing.

I hope the judge just gives him the hearing to just say, 'LMAO! No. Now I have given you what you wanted, and i find against you. Appeal me if you want.'

It's also retarded because they keep complaining about compression and artifacting

Worse, Nick's lawyers have NEVER alleged compression or artefacting. They have also NEVER argued that the video is not a 'true and correct' copy or that it is not an accurate representation. The ONLY argument was, 'THAT IS NOT MY VIDEO! THEY LIED ABOUT WATCHING MY VIDEO! WE SHOULD WIN! THE WATERMARKS!'

per Pomplun's statement, it wasn't the apparent coke on his nose that got his attention, but Nick's clearly drugged out behaviour, which Pomplun recognised based on his training (and which we all recognised based on not being fucking braindead).

Nick has studiously avoided this argument eith the same assiduous nature as he has in detailing the discrepancies between the various video archives--sans YT overlays.