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.

[Strix454]

Do you guys think Nick would still have turned out this way if he was a regular boring CPA instead of a (non practicing) lawyer? Is it nature or nurture with him?

I think he lasted three years working a regular 9 to 5 job and even in his first year of work out of college, he was having severe trouble adapting to it. I think that whatever his occupation was, he would have quickly attempting to use his accommodating parents and his grandparents money to exit the workforce.

Nick, like a surprising number of people IMO, cannot handle an unstructured life without work. They fall into heavy drinking, drugs and/or degeneracy. Just like Nick did. You see it with retired people who just can't handle retirement. You also see it among the entitled children of wealthy people.

The nurture failure in Nick's life was a failure to make him accept and deal with adult responsibilities. The guy has always been a child and seemingly always had his parents protecting him or covering for him. He could never have afforded a stay at home wife or the houses he was living in from his own income. He could never have paid for law school himself.

The nature failure is a lack of empathy, narcissism, laziness and utter selfishness. The "real" Nick is probably best seen in that stream where he goes after the mother of his children over the consequences of pregnancy to her body. He is also one of those archtype people who read Ayn Rand books and falsely convince themselves that they are Ayn Rand heroes when they are in fact the people Ayn Rand was most critical of.

 

[Captain Manning]

I don't get the impression that Nick was a particularly successful swinger before meeting the Imholtes.

I agree. I think attempts were made, but the Imholte's were his first successful bite.

Though successful is probably the wrong word to use here given how this has played out.

The pothead's claim that there were 6-7 swinging partners from the church before Aaron sounds like utter horseshit.

Coomalot is such a degenerate and so retarded he doesn't understand that a normal person doesn't think swinging is reprehensible, doubly if you have a ton of kids, and doesn't realize Nick's currently trying to keep up a facade.

Coomalot has the mentality of a 20 year old dude-bro frat boy. What he doesn't realize is that shit doesn't fly as well in society (to whatever extent it flies at all) when you are in your 40s, married, and have five kids. A lot of people see it as immature, gross, and harmful to the family unit. Or worse. And that's even before you factor in the coke, and the 9 year old's drug test results.

A good person to compare Nick to is Tucker Max (ironically also a non-practicing lawyer).

Tucker Max had his wild years, then gave up that lifestyle, got married, and had four kids. Tucker Max front-loaded his degeneracy in his 20s, wrote some books that received critical acclaim (and I thought were pretty funny at points even as a Scandinavian prude), and then grew the fuck up.

Nick is doing this completely ass-backwards, and it's a disaster for him and everybody close to him.

I'm going to guess he was addicted for much, if not most of 2023.

Oddly enough, I kinda believe his claim that he started coke at Hedonism II (though I don't believe the part where he claims he didn't like it... obviously).

There was always drinking, but he didn't start to go seriously to hell both mentally and physically until the later half of 2022.

Why don't people just ASK me about rumours?

Why would anybody ask him shit, when all he does is lie?

Do you guys think Nick would still have turned out this way if he was a regular boring CPA instead of a (non practicing) lawyer? Is it nature or nurture with him?

Nature.

But exacerbated further by drugs, alcohol, and hedonism (both the place, and figuratively).

I knew something was off about him beginning in 2020. It was way worse than I ever imagined.

 

[not william stenchever]

The people who are obsessed with wanting/hoping the children to be hurt worse than they already are are freaks who should have their heads checked and may need to stay away from children themselves. I see no evidence for it besides the fact that Nick is comfortable with people who say stuff that should get them shot in the head.

Nick is narcicisstic enough to resent his children and tell everyone how much he resents them for holding him back from his depravity, as well as thinking he's a goddamn genius for medicating one with cocaine but I highly doubt he's depraved enough to abuse them in such a way. I think even at his most coked out state he would draw the line long before that.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Rekieta was in the Elissa Clips comment section yesterday on the video "STMS: The Old Rekieta Nanny" which is probably going to be one of Aaron's last insights on the operation of the polycule.


He denied that his old nanny was "the person who wanted to remain anonymous".



Not only is Nick watching Elissa Clips, he is reading the comment section and replying, but he can't start a stream.

I am missing half of Rekieta's commentary, since after responding to former fan Schree in Elissa's comment section yesterday, Nick has actually come back to respond again today to continue coping and whining about his former fan Schree's "personal whining" about him.

Why he's so butthurt about this I can't figure out, but it may have something to do with his inability to take criticism from women.



Credit to @Third World Aristocrat for noticing the additional comments.

 

[W@rui]

I think even at his most coked out state he would draw the line long before that.

I'm going to withhold judgement on that; considering how many times his masks have slipped. I trust him as much as Boogie.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Why he's so butthurt about this I can't figure out, but it may have something to do with his inability to take criticism from women.

I wonder how many women are currently nagging him to get sober, go through rehab, get a job, kick out the Ape.
He must be hating life right now.

 

[Sharpeteer]

Why would anybody ask him shit, when all he does is lie?

"I have never lied about anything."

Deboonked.

 

[Dimension Sniper]

Nick is narcicisstic enough to resent his children and tell everyone how much he resents them for holding him back from his depravity, as well as thinking he's a goddamn genius for medicating one with cocaine but I highly doubt he's depraved enough to abuse them in such a way. I think even at his most coked out state he would draw the line long before that.

I don’t even think it’s a matter of him drawing a line of morality. It’s more that what I’ve seen of his behavior doesn’t suggest that that type of activity would appeal to him, which is actually worse.

 

[repentance]

Do you guys think Nick would still have turned out this way if he was a regular boring CPA instead of a (non practicing) lawyer? Is it nature or nurture with him?

I think he would have tried to find a path which led in this direction. His success really was lightning in a bottle, though, and it's hard to imagine it would have occurred outside of the very specific circumstances which led to his "celebrity". His ego being fed and the money rolling were exciting and he wanted more of that, and a regular, boring CPA doesn't get that excitement.

Why he's so butthurt about this I can't figure out, but it may have something to do with his inability to take criticism from women.

You nailed it.

The main reason I think the coke ingestion by the child was unintentional is that Nick's not going to share his coke with anyone unless there's something in it for him. ADHD meds exist, are effective, and they're cheaper than coke. Nick was on the stimulant path long ago, though, and I could definitely see him helping himself to his kids' meds (iirc, the CPS documents said that more than one child was on meds).

 

[Captain Manning]

Why he's so butthurt about this I can't figure out, but it may have something to do with his inability to take criticism from women.

It's not just women. He can't take strong criticism from anybody. There's plenty of male examples too.

If you are at one point loyal to him, you are expected to be loyal to him forever and forever, no matter how wrong he is, or awful he gets.

 

[Peace Through Power]

Nick has come back to twitter to argue with Breaking Balldo News

Archive,X,Xcancel
Zero self-awareness

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Nick has come back to twitter to argue with Breaking Balldo News
View attachment 6415565
Archive,X,Xcancel
Zero self-awareness

Hi Nick! Totally not reading KF, yes?

You have been such a good boy the past week, please have another drink, snort a line.
You earned it!

 

[TexOffender]

Why he's so butthurt about this I can't figure out, but it may have something to do with his inability to take criticism from women.

Nick benefitted from his husband and father of five kids aura. It made women drop their guard around him and sort of accept him and his quirks. Now that they (at least the women following this) know he's a creep he can't do it anymore.

 

[Swole McPole]

Coke is hardly what you’d give a kid to molest them. An opiate or a benzo maybe, but coke? I can see you lure some 16 year old fatherless party chick with some coke or crack but a prepubescent kid?!

I think that's some solid logic right there, and if it was anybody else, I'd be totally behind it. Also, I completely agree with @Anticipointment's point about not jumping to the worst scenario. Again, if it was anyone else, I'd completely agree.

But Rekieta is so fucking shady, so unhinged and so arrogant I wouldn't put anything past him these days. So what if it was the other way around, and Rekieta was already molesting the kid? Let's look at the facts:

- We know that his circle of friends are all paedos or paedo-adjacent. Diddler Dax, Ethan Ralph, Vito, etc.
- We know that his taste in cinema and comics is focused on the idea of having sex with children (American Beauty and Redo of Healer).
- We also know that his taste in sex has tended towards violating things that normal people would regard as moral and ethical boundaries. (Swinging/wife swapping/open marriage, etc.)
- We know he was doing large quantities of cocaine. This is often a prelude to engaging in degenerate sex as it takes more and more extreme stimulus to get you off.

So what are the odds that he was engaged in inappropriate behaviour with his 'favourite' daughter? Might have been a long way short of full sex. The chance would have to be smaller than 100% but greater than 0% It isn't beyond the realms of possibility though.

So Rekieta has this inappropriately close relationship with his favourite daughter. They're hanging out together a lot, while Nick's chopping out those big fat lines. What's the chance he chops one out for the kid? Again, smaller than 100% but greater than 0% If someone was offering odds of around 10-1, given what we know about Nick, I'd be happy to take that bet.

 

[Hellion]

Nick has come back to twitter to argue with Breaking Balldo News
View attachment 6415565
Archive,X,Xcancel
Zero self-awareness

"Some people don't realise they have problems"

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I think that's some solid logic right there, and if it was anybody else, I'd be totally behind it. Also, I completely agree with @Anticipointment's point about not jumping to the worst scenario. Again, if it was anyone else, I'd completely agree.

But Rekieta is so fucking shady, so unhinged and so arrogant I wouldn't put anything past him these days. So what if it was the other way around, and Rekieta was already molesting the kid? Let's look at the facts:

- We know that his circle of friends are all paedos or paedo-adjacent. Diddler Dax, Ethan Ralph, Vito, etc.
- We know that his taste in cinema and comics is focused on the idea of having sex with children (American Beauty and Redo of Healer).
- We also know that his taste in sex has tended towards violating things that normal people would regard as moral and ethical boundaries. (Swinging/wife swapping/open marriage, etc.)
- We know he was doing large quantities of cocaine. This is often a prelude to engaging in degenerate sex as it takes more and more extreme stimulus to get you off.

So what are the odds that he was engaged in inappropriate behaviour with his 'favourite' daughter? Might have been a long way short of full sex. The chance would have to be smaller than 100% but greater than 0% It isn't beyond the realms of possibility though.

So Rekieta has this inappropriately close relationship with his favourite daughter. They're hanging out together a lot, while Nick's chopping out those big fat lines. What's the chance he chops one out for the kid? Again, smaller than 100% but greater than 0% If someone was offering odds of around 10-1, given what we know about Nick, I'd be happy to take that bet.

There's a containment thread for nonce fantasy about Nick. Please post your speculations there.

 

[Sam Losco's Wife]

Why don't people just ASK me about rumours?

He's so manipulative, I hate that "you know me!" line he uses. "I never lied, you know me. I didn't do coke, you know me. I didn't lick Aaron's asshole while he dicked down Qayla. You know me."

There's a containment thread for nonce fantasy about Nick. Please post your speculations there.

That's dark.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Lolwut?!

Just a friendly reminder that it’s been like a year since Nick’s streaming paid the bills.

And since never that his legal career did.

One day just slides into another day and then a week and suddenly it’s autumn and not spring and you have no idea where time went or what you’ve been doing.

This is also the experience of growing older.

*sorry I can't reply directly

@Pelican Bones Okay, but unless I'm misreading it seems that there is an exception to crimes committed against the spouse or children. Since one of the charges is child neglect and endangerment I imagine that qualifier applies. I mean, that would be pretty fucked up if a wife couldn't testify that she saw her husband raping their kid in the ass because it was a "private communication". Plus, it says that a spouse CAN be prevented from testifying, not that they will. I imagine the judge could just tell the defense to eat shit and prepare for a dicking. Oh, you're gonna appeal? Scary.

I'm trying this again, and I hope I haven't fucked it up trying to make everything phrased exactly the same way. It needs a table/grid, but it's got like 4 axes, so it's a pain.

The general rule is that anyone can testify against anyone.

Spousal privileges (and others, like attorney-client, clergy, etc.) are exceptions to the general rule.

If both spouses hold the privilege, a defendant spouse/ex-spouse can refuse to consent to (= "prevent") the other spouse's testifying for or against them. If the defendant waives or fails to assert the privilege, the potentially testifying spouse may also hold the privilege, and then can assert or waive it.

Under MN law, there are two marriage-related concepts relevant to testifying for/ against a current or former spouse:

Spousal testimonial privilege - testifying about acts/ observations:

Current spouse - acts/ observations:

• A person can assert the privilege and can prevent (refuse to consent to) a current spouse's testifying about acts/ observations that occurred at any point (before or during the marriage).
  • If a defendant doesn't assert the privilege, a current spouse can agree to testify about acts/ observations that occurred at any point (before or during the marriage).
  • If a defendant doesn't assert the privilege and a current spouse asserts the privilege (refuses to testify), the current spouse cannot be compelled by the state to testify about acts/ observations that occurred at any point (before or during the marriage).

Former spouse - acts/ observations:

• A person cannot assert the privilege and prevent a former spouse from testifying about acts/ observations that occurred at any point (before, during, after marriage).
  • A former spouse can agree to testify about acts/ observations that occurred at any point (before, during, or after the marriage).
  • Even if a former spouse asserts the privilege (refuses to testify), they can be compelled by the state to testify about acts/ observations that occurred at any point (before, during, after marriage).

Marital communication privilege - testifying about confidential inter-spousal communications:

Current and former spouses - communications during marriage

• A person can assert the privilege and can prevent a current OR former spouse from testifying about private/ confidential inter-spousal communications made during the marriage.
  • If a defendant doesn't assert the privilege, a current or former spouse can agree to testify about communications made during the marriage.
    • If a defendant doesn't assert the privilege and a current spouse asserts the privilege (refuses to testify), the current spouse cannot be compelled by the state to testify about communications made during the marriage.
    • If a defendant doesn't assert the privilege and a former spouse asserts the privilege (refuses to testify), the former spouse can be compelled by the state to testify about communications made during the marriage.

Current and former spouses - communications before/ after marriage:

• A person cannot prevent a current or former spouse from testifying about communications made before/ after marriage.
  • A current or former spouse can agree to testify about communications made before/ after marriage.
  • If a current spouse asserts the privilege (refuses to testify), they cannot be compelled by the state to testify about communications made before/after marriage.
  • Even if a former spouse asserts the privilege (refuses to testify), they can be compelled by the state to testify about communications made before/after marriage.

The carveout from this exception is that a current or former spouse can testify about both acts and communications in an action/proceeding about (among other things) a crime against children in their care, even if her spouse objects.

(Interestingly the carveout doesn't explicitly or clearly limit the allowed testimony only to the specific charge(s) - it says it applies to "a criminal action or proceeding for a crime..." against their children (etc.), not just to that alleged crime. I have to think that that's been litigated or there's legislative guidance but idk and not feeling like hunting for that, plus my hand hurts from trying to lay out, align language, and format the privilege stuff - on phone as usual.)

I'm pretty sure Nick also insults a certain Minnesota swinger event. I don't 100% recall, but I'm pretty sure that happened. That gives the suggestion that he went and wasn't impressed with what he found there.

Lol obviously Nick & Kayla weren't invited to the beautiful people parties.

Tucker Max

NOOOOOOO, NOT TUCKER MAX! Taking me way back now. Proto-cow. Unlike Nick, he not only made a million dollars, he held onto it.

Eta- far be it from me to praise Tucker Max, but he not only held onto his initial success money, he flipped into a publishing company (which, iirc, had an interesting statement of core values - I downloaded it at some point as a reference doc for god-knows-what), and is now on the homesteading thing.

 

[Mr. Manchester]

Nick has come back to twitter to argue with Breaking Balldo News
View attachment 6415565
Archive,X,Xcancel
Zero self-awareness

Imagine the life Rackets leads. Logs on to twitter and an account named after a bizarre sex toy that everyone now associates with you pointing out some woman that used to follow you on a website no longer does. The first thing that goes into your head isn't to ignore it but to respond. All of this with a brutal felony charge, a withering defense of a defamation lawsuit against a random lunatic and the cracks in your family growing larger by the day. Say what you will about Nick, he leads an interesting (and horrifying) life.

 

[Peace Through Power]

Imagine the life Rackets leads. Logs on to twitter and an account named after a bizarre sex toy that everyone now associates with you pointing out some woman that used to follow you on a website no longer does. The first thing that goes into your head isn't to ignore it but to respond. All of this with a brutal felony charge, a withering defense of a defamation lawsuit against a random lunatic and the cracks in your family growing larger by the day. Say what you will about Nick, he leads an interesting (and horrifying) life.

The amount of crack he smokes also grows larger by the day.