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

[FamicomGorby]

It's really his only strategy since the video is so clearly him completely fucked up. I guess he could just Ralphamale move and claim it was all a work to the judge.

 

[Anasûrimbor Kellhus]

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.)

it really only does make sense to me if his plan is to get BTFO'd in court and is only interested in the internet rep aspect of this all, as it was said by someone else earlier he is setting up so when he gets felted by the court he can cry "the court and system persecuting me by ignoring my epic legal skillzz they have it out for me for criticizing the goooberment!!!! ANYWAYS I HATE TALKING ABOUT TRUMP AND GUNS I WANNA TALK ABOUT SWINGING AND MOLLY"

 

[Napoleon III]

(re)compression

The problem is that compression can fuck up the video quality and cause a lot of issues. This exact issue came up in the Rittenhouse trial because the Prosecution tried to say that a couple of pixels were a gun. Compression does actually change the pixels in a video/image. I don't feel like going through the Linear Algebra to prove it but it does.

Rekieta is still obviously wrong, but something like that is one of the best arguments he has made so far. Especially if the issue is a couple white pixels on Rekieta's nose. However I think the fact Rekieta is playing so many games with the copy of the video and that the police had a guy that could identify the behavior of a drug addict is enough to make Rekieta's argument fail.

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.

This is a fantastic and excellent point. I don't know if I agree with it but it is a very interesting.

The reason I don't know if I 100% agree is that Rekieta is a somewhat public figure especially in Minnesota. Successfully prosecuting him might be quite valuable to a prosecutor's career. It also depends on how the government decides to spend resources. It might be expensive and annoying to prosecute Nick, but maybe the local government, like many governments, is pretty immune to considerations of cost.

Anyway very interesting dimension to all of this. I am glad you made that point.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

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.

I don't consider that being a "good lawyer," though I'm speaking more on principle. It's cheap and shady cheating, not good quality lawyering. And you don't have to know jack about law - or good at it - to be an annoying twat.

But if you mean it can be effective - some people seem to think so, but I'd say that overall it's neutral-to-negative. It doesn't really move the needle all that much - prosecutors have heard and dealt with it all before. Showing that you're shady, will personally attack everyone in the room, and talk out of both sides of your mouth could disincentivize offering a good-faith bargaining discussion, could mean a prosecutor will start higher and be less flexible, and may shorten how long an offer will remain open.

Usually a defendant whose lawyer is known to be reasonable, credible, trustworthy, and above-board will be in a better position maybe to get some outreach on a deal but almost definitely result in an easier negotiation. Without the distractions of having to expect a shiv in the neck, negotiation can be more straightforward; a prosecutor who doesn't believe you're likely to keep your word or will renegotiate at the last minute the second you think you have an edge is going to have shorter patience for wasting time trying to reach a deal. A "good" lawyer can be a good buffer and facilitator, lending some of their own shiny reputation to the client crosswise with the law (who has no credibility in that situation). Negotiating with mutual professional trust almost always goes better for a client than without it.

That's all assuming budget/resources are not an overriding issue. Though if you piss off a prosecutor hard enough, it might be all the other criminals who get a break instead of you. ...but tbh I don't think this case is really that big, even in Kandiyohi County, MN. They'll definitely offer a deal no matter what.

The problem for Nick is that he needs anything felony to disappear completely. Well, I'm projecting, I guess. For most lawyers, the stain of a felony, even if they didn't lose their license, would torpedo their prospects. Nick has no prospects as a lawyer (even if someone wanted to hire him, he clearly hates it) so he wouldn't lose a livelihood or his nonexistent professional reputation. But he does value the credential, and in some vague way the credibility that irl tends to come with it. He also likes pretending he's some sort of iconoclast, and being "a lawyer" is the foil for that. A felony threatens that. And losing his real-world trophy means he goes from Rebel Lawyer to Dumb Idiot Who Fucked Himself. Which doesn't even fit on a license plate.

 

[kcbbq]

I'm just sad that Nicky lied to all of us about all his guns accidentally falling into a lake. It's red worst kind of betrayal of trust.

 

[AnOminous]

The problem is that compression can fuck up the video quality and cause a lot of issues. This exact issue came up in the Rittenhouse trial because the Prosecution tried to say that a couple of pixels were a gun. Compression does actually change the pixels in a video/image. I don't feel like going through the Linear Algebra to prove it but it does.

Nick's lawyers haven't actually made that argument, though. Nick did. It also doesn't just magically put artifacts in only when you come back from the powder room violently gnashing your teeth and lurching from side to side and raving insanely, after previously having been near comatose.

I don't consider that being a "good lawyer," though I'm speaking more on principle. It's cheap and shady cheating, not good quality lawyering. And you don't have to know jack about law - or good at it - to be an annoying twat.

It's not what he's doing, but that he's doing it in a faggy way.

 

[Anasûrimbor Kellhus]

The problem is that compression can fuck up the video quality and cause a lot of issues. This exact issue came up in the Rittenhouse trial because the Prosecution tried to say that a couple of pixels were a gun. Compression does actually change the pixels in a video/image. I don't feel like going through the Linear Algebra to prove it but it does.

IMO the "compression" thing still is irrelevant because than all prosecution/court has to do is compare the cog version in question to the original odysee upload that I think Nick actively mentioned in his report (or at least bragged about publically?) and demonstrate the nose candy is on both and compression is not the issue. Pomplin outright said he viewed both the original and the reupload so a comparison would easily show he didn't lie in any capacity. I know nothing about law but it seems like to me the rittenhouse footage issue is like apples and oranges to the nick booger sugar footage issue.

 

[Hrothgar]

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.

Didn't he imply at some point that Judge Pussy Liquor and the DA were in on it as well? It's hard to be sure with all his cowardly "I'm not saying this, but..." and having other people act as mouthpieces. Sounds like a situation in which the local government should really release body cam footage in order to clear up all this public misconception about the actions of its law enforcement and officials.

 

[Myfacenurass]

It was next to a snort tube, both of which were on top of the cards. From the summons:


Tube and vial on top. Common accoutrements of cocaine use before you even get to looking at the name on the cards, so reasonable to test them in the first instance. Then, sitting on April's cards ties them to her. She was in the home/bedroom and her belongings were both in the open and underneath a drug tool that tested for coke and a vial containing it (whether or not the cards did). That is much more than "mere presence" in the home.

Just a lurker, so bear with me. I'm so curious if the adult women had even a minute of warning - it sounds like they had more if there was a whole argument/ door- battering, why the ladies in the house didn't just dispose of the coke? Even crackheads know how to flush, to clean credit cards, or at least put things away. It sounds like they didn't even try. Do we know or do y'all have a theory about why?

 

[Dimension Sniper]

Just a lurker, so bear with me. I'm so curious if the adult women had even a minute of warning - it sounds like they had more if there was a whole argument/ door- battering, why the ladies in the house didn't just dispose of the coke? Even crackheads know how to flush, to clean credit cards, or at least put things away. It sounds like they didn't even try. Do we know or do y'all have a theory about why?

Junkies get caught with their shit out in the open all the time. They were high as balls and didn’t think about it, and Nick never properly trained his whores to destroy evidence if the cops showed up.

 

[Oliver Onions]

It's really his only strategy since the video is so clearly him completely fucked up. I guess he could just Ralphamale move and claim it was all a work to the judge.

Since he has repeatedly made the claim on stream that nothing about his behaviour or appearance has changed in the last 2 years, I'd much prefer to see him try and convince the judge that he was acting completely sober and normal (while the Anime Sucks Cope And Sneed clip is being played for the jury).

 

[SargonF00t]

Even though his motion has been pathetic, do you think the Court will grant him a Franks hearing anyway, knowing he will get nowhere with that?

And the Court avoids any appeal due to denying him a Franks hearing?

 

[FamicomGorby]

Since he has repeatedly made the claim on stream that nothing about his behaviour or appearance has changed in the last 2 years, I'd much prefer to see him try and convince the judge that he was acting completely sober and normal (while the Anime Sucks Cope And Sneed clip is being played for the jury).

About the same logic as getting really drunk before getting your driver's license picture taken so the cop thinks you look normal when they pull you over. Nick would have to then make another clip where he's even more drunk to show the judge what he really looks like when fucked up.

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

Just a lurker, so bear with me. I'm so curious if the adult women had even a minute of warning - it sounds like they had more if there was a whole argument/ door- battering, why the ladies in the house didn't just dispose of the coke? Even crackheads know how to flush, to clean credit cards, or at least put things away. It sounds like they didn't even try. Do we know or do y'all have a theory about why?

Maybe they did and there was originally more. Maybe they were too drugged and scared to think of it. Who knows who knows.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

Rekieta is still obviously wrong, but something like that is one of the best arguments he has made so far. Especially if the issue is a couple white pixels on Rekieta's nose. However I think the fact Rekieta is playing so many games with the copy of the video and that the police had a guy that could identify the behavior of a drug addict is enough to make Rekieta's argument fail.

Unfortunately for Rackets, the conviction against him will use the mountain of coke found in his house, not the pixels on his nose.

 

[Not At All A Lizard]

Maybe they did and there was originally more. Maybe they were too drugged and scared to think of it. Who knows who knows.

This is the thing we'll probably never know, but sounds extremely plausible. They found coke all over the place, it would make sense that they flushed the big load and just missed a bag, some snort tubes and other such things.

It's also possible the retard husband told the women the cops would never ever be able to go into the house or bedroom. And if they found anything they couldn't use it. That kinda thinking clearly fits with his behavior in this case.
And being retarded coke whores they believed him and genuinely thought they were safe.

 

[Pentamidine]

This is the thing we'll probably never know, but sounds extremely plausible. They found coke all over the place, it would make sense that they flushed the big load and just missed a bag, some snort tubes and other such things.

It's also possible the retard husband told the women the cops would never ever be able to go into the house or bedroom. And if they found anything they couldn't use it. That kinda thinking clearly fits with his behavior in this case.
And being retarded coke whores they believed him and genuinely thought they were safe.

Given that both Qayla and April were in the master bedroom with all the cocaine when the cops got in (Right? I'm not misremembering that?), they probably had been dumping coke and just couldn't get all of it.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Just a lurker, so bear with me. I'm so curious if the adult women had even a minute of warning - it sounds like they had more if there was a whole argument/ door- battering, why the ladies in the house didn't just dispose of the coke? Even crackheads know how to flush, to clean credit cards, or at least put things away. It sounds like they didn't even try. Do we know or do y'all have a theory about why?

Dumb, or passed out until too late.

And what @Not At All A Lizard said.

 

[Strix454]

The problem is that compression can fuck up the video quality and cause a lot of issues. This exact issue came up in the Rittenhouse trial because the Prosecution tried to say that a couple of pixels were a gun. Compression does actually change the pixels in a video/image. I don't feel like going through the Linear Algebra to prove it but it does.

Any video content uploaded to or run through youtube is changed in any number of ways including compression. If recompression is an issue, so are several stages the video information went through when it was streamed the first time. Taken to the logical limit, the argument would be that the content of no video uploaded or streamed through youtube could be trusted as evidence even for probable cause in a warrant.

Nick's idea that there is a "pure" copy of the video and that all subsequent copies of that video are damaged is not really sound. The original multi-step tool chain from his camera to the streaming output seen by a end viewer introduces an enormous amount of transformation into the video signal.

Nick's side has not produced any evidence that the video has been transformed or altered in a material way in the copy. Nick's side has also not shown how the disclosure or non-disclosure of the source of the video to the judge misled the judge in issuing the warrant.

I think he might have a better argument to be made in front of a jury in terms of compression changing things (if the video were introduced into evidence). But even there, if the video is shown to a jury its going to be so directly damaging that I don't think most juries would be in a mood to listen to pixel alteration arguments after.

 

[not william stenchever]

Just a lurker, so bear with me. I'm so curious if the adult women had even a minute of warning - it sounds like they had more if there was a whole argument/ door- battering, why the ladies in the house didn't just dispose of the coke? Even crackheads know how to flush, to clean credit cards, or at least put things away. It sounds like they didn't even try. Do we know or do y'all have a theory about why?

K-Hole Kayla can't do basic shit sober, no way she would be capable of reacting decisively and flushing the drugs. April is fucking retarded as well. And how can they do more cocaine if they get rid of the cocaine. Not to mention the ragetwig's ranting at them after learning they wasted HIS money by flushing it, he's probably delusional enough to think he can lawyer his way to getting the booger sugar back.