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

[SaidNoOneEver]

You guys on the Kiwi Farms Law Couch just don't understand law stuff the way non-practicing lawyers like Nick Rekieta do.

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

Dear God. The Judge eviscerated every shitty argument Balldo made.

 

[Major]

This is the sequence of what happened

In the state's response to Nick's motion filed by his Barneswalking lawyer, they request an additional briefing schedule if Nick was intending to challenge probable cause (rather than simply request a Franks hearing)

View attachment 6450593

The Barneswalker in his reply wrote that "pursuant to the State's suggestion" Nick "does wish to turn this into a general probable cause dismissal" and requests an additional briefing schedule (presumably in the event they failed to win with the Franks hearing)

Yes that's right. According to this sentence the Barneswalker appears not to have even thought of challenging probable cause (the most obvious challenge to make at this stage of the proceedings) until "the State's suggestion" of it in their brief.

EVEN REKIETA WAS ABLE TO DO THIS WHEN HE WAS PRACTICING!

This statement appeared on the last page of the reply, page 8, under the "Conclusion" heading with no additional context earlier in the document that I could find.

View attachment 6450594

The judge laughed it off below.... apparently he has no interest in wasting more time on this stupid shit.

View attachment 6450595

The Barneswalker fucked up massively. It's not like it would have done any good in the end, because that wouldn't have worked either but Nick would be justified to be furious at this. It's beyond sloppy.

I thought probable cause was the entire thesis of Nick's challenge to the warrant. Isn't that was the omnibussy was about? Or is that somehow separate? Why would it be separate?

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

The Barneswalker fucked up massively. It's not like it would have done any good in the end, because that wouldn't have worked either but Nick would be justified to be furious at this. It's beyond sloppy.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE​

Rule 11.The Omnibus Hearing​

Rule 11.02Scope of the Hearing​

If the prosecutor or defendant demands a hearing under Rule 8.03, the court must conduct an Omnibus Hearing and hear all motions relating to:
(a) Probable cause;

It is literally (a) of the list of things the Omnibus Hearing is for.

I assume they thought they were doing that with their challenge of the Search Warrant, but they only explicitly asked for the Franks to challenge the things used for the search warrant, not probable cause itself.

I thought probable cause was the entire thesis of Nick's challenge to the warrant. Isn't that was the omnibussy was about? Or is that somehow separate? Why would it be separate?

I believe they thought they challenged that, but never actually explicitly talked about it.
They are challenging the warrant itself, but never challenge that they did not have probable cause to request it.

 

[not william stenchever]

I thought probable cause was the entire thesis of Nick's challenge to the warrant. Isn't that was the omnibussy was about? Or is that somehow separate? Why would it be separate?

Nick's retard lawyer forgot to actually bring up probable cause.

 

[TwinPeaksEnjoyer]

View attachment 6450915

"Well.....I got some bad news buddy." - Judge Wentzell

 

[Major]

Weird interpretation of things. He brought up the video the police used as a way of attacking the warrant which is probable cause isn't it? I suppose that's one of those retarded lawyer things, that everything has to be by some arcane procedure. Not agreeing with nick or his lawyer, but I'd be pissed off if I were him.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Dammit Nick, you lost the case again!

 

[Long-time Lurker]

He obviously will still try to toss the warrant and probably could inhale a massive amount of copium by noting the judge assessed the use of social media to issue the warrant as "unusual" but he clearly got bucked.

The omnibus is over. It is not timely to try and toss the warrant now.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Sig Sauer .380

SIGGER ALERT!
Thank you for showing that balldo has really awful taste in guns.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Weird interpretation of things. He brought up the video the police used as a way of attacking the warrant which is probable cause isn't it? I suppose that's one of those retarded lawyer things, that everything has to be by some arcane procedure. Not agreeing with nick or his lawyer, but I'd be pissed off if I were him.

No, he attacked the affidavit signed by Detective Pomplun and its contents.

Probable cause definiton from the 5th Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary
"Reasonable suspicion of the presence of evidence of criminality, allowing the search of the person or premises for such evidence by authorities."

They never once brought that up in the Omnibus hearing. Which was the place to raise the issue.
If they wanted to tie their other arguments and motions into that, they could have done that. But for it to be possible they would have had to raise the issue in the first place.

For example like this:

We believe there was no probable cause because of the following factors;

• The information came from a person who holds a grudge against defendant and wants to ruin his life (include examples of Aaron being a moron)
• The Officer used misleading language and an altered video that did not come from the defendants youtube channel

In light of the abovementioned we request a Frank hearing to challenge the affidavit of Detective Pomplun.

They did not raise the issue of probable cause at all. They might have implied it, but this is court and there are procedures how stuff is done.
Part of that is, if you want to raise an issue, you do it at the Omnibus hearing. They never did, so now it is no longer possible.

[EDIT] They could have also argued things like "how would the officer know he did not bake a pie and its baking soda or flour?" or other silly ideas, maybe challenge the officers competency in recognizing drug users etc.

But they didn't.

 

[Briarthorn Addict]

View attachment 6450915

I love his labored breathing as he crunches that chip; you can tell he's trying his hardest to keep it together, trying to keep focus and breathing with his eyebrows as he lets that statement ring out into the ether. It just makes the clip so much funnier.
The irony of him sneeding about kiwis as his bender comes to an unconscious stop, while his civil case all his cases steadily progress against him - this might be the best Rekieta clip to date.

 

[Lubby Smith]

Nick may attempt to file for an interlocutory appeal

His attempt would be immediately rejected. Denial of a Franks hearing gets challenged after trial in the direct appeal.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

I thought probable cause was the entire thesis of Nick's challenge to the warrant. Isn't that was the omnibussy was about? Or is that somehow separate? Why would it be separate?

Weird interpretation of things. He brought up the video the police used as a way of attacking the warrant which is probable cause isn't it? I suppose that's one of those retarded lawyer things, that everything has to be by some arcane procedure. Not agreeing with nick or his lawyer, but I'd be pissed off if I were him.

Nick and the Barneswalker's argument was that "THEY LIED"™, and after excluding what "THEY LIED"™ about, it would have been clear there was no probable cause. Therefore, he requested a Franks hearing.
(Note: there was no evidence presented of anyone lying)

They also could have argued that, separately, putting aside the main argument they are making that "THEY LIED"™ and they should get a hearing over that, that the document even then still didn't meet the threshold of probable cause.

The judge found that Nick and his Barneswalker didn't sufficiently raise that general challenge to probable cause and included it in the arguments which were"not argued with particularity or otherwise specifically identified to the Court as a contested issue" and DENIED.

The Barneswalker fucked up.

 

[NostalgicJam]

The judge's order was filed today, somewhat earlier than expected, following the omnibus hearing in Nick Rekieta's case and the filings by Nick's lawyer and the state.

The results?

Rekieta's motion for Franks hearing: DENIED
Rekieta's motion to suppress evidence: DENIED
All other omnibus issues not argued with particularity or otherwise specifically identified to the Court: DENIED (having been deemed to be waived by Rekieta)

Spoiler: Document

View attachment 6450437View attachment 6450436View attachment 6450435View attachment 6450432View attachment 6450431View attachment 6450430View attachment 6450429View attachment 6450428View attachment 6450425View attachment 6450423View attachment 6450422View attachment 6450421View attachment 6450420

View attachment 6450448

GG's Rackets LOL

 

[SiggerNlayer]

You know I was having a real dull tuesday at work, this really did alot to brighten that up.
I hope we get a relapsestream for this from Nick

 

[Chode]

Nate the Lawyer briefly mentioned Nick possibly having to refrain from drinking alcohol while on probation. Is that true? If so that would be enough for Nick to take the case to trial.

 

[3MMA]

In this moment I just want to sit back and think about how incredibly smug Nick got after the omnibussin' hearing.

Right, he was out celebrating, even got lunch with da Gunt & took photographs to post online for posterity. Nick claimed he was winning. His whole posse of faggots (including Juju the Cow, aka Dax Herrera) went on a social media & stream tour, regaling the (tall) tale of how hard Nick was winning. It’s fun to see all the smug faggots fall so fast from their imagined place of grace. Truth outs. bish.

He cant tell you now but the truth will come out when he can tell the full story!

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

Regarding an immediate appeal, here’s what 10 minutes of research has brought forward.

Rule 28.02 of Minn. R. Crim. P.
(2) Orders. A defendant cannot appeal until the district court enters an adverse final judgment, but may appeal:

(a) from an order refusing or imposing conditions of release; or

(b) in felony and gross misdemeanor cases from an order:

1. granting a new trial, and the defendant claims that the district court should have entered a final judgment in the defendant's favor;

2. not on the defendant's motion, finding the defendant incompetent to stand trial; or

3. denying a motion to dismiss a complaint following a mistrial, and the defendant claims retrial would violate double jeopardy.
…
In the interests of justice and on petition of the defendant, the Court of Appeals may allow an appeal from an order not otherwise appealable, but not from an order made during trial. The petition must be served and filed within 30 days after entry of the order appealed. Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure 105 governs the procedure for the appeal.

At least one court of appeal in Minnesota determined that a pretrial finding of probable cause was not a final judgment that could be appealed immediately. Kirchner v. Jernell, No. A12-1328, 2013 WL 1943013 (Minn. Ct. App. May 13, 2013). And Minnesota courts have not adopted the collateral order doctrine in criminal cases. State v. Ali, 806 N.W.2d 45, 47 (Minn. 2011).

In sum, he could try to appeal it. But it’s 99.9% likely it would fail. I’m not feeling so good, balldo bros…

 

[AnOminous]

Criminal / Minnesota lawyers here. Is this going to start some lengthy interlocutory appeal or are we going to have to wait for a verdict before the (inevitable) appeal based on the Franks denial?

He can try, but it would be untimely. It's an evidentiary decision that is not appealable that way. It would be slapped down in short order by the appeals court, and at the point Nick starts really wasting everyone's time with patently frivolous motion practice, appeals, etc., that's when the likelihood of getting a favorable plea goes out the window.

Nick would have to be an utter idiot to spend money on such an attempt. So yeah he might do that.

The Monty case had an appeal over an arcane legal issue in a weird form of lawsuit (defamation lawsuits between internet-famous lolcows don't happen every day), but this is about as run-of-the-mill as court cases get.

It was also over a claim of anti-SLAPP immunity. An immunity issue is generally immediately appealable, since an immunity is the right not to have to stand trial at all, and obviously can't be fixed on appeal, since the trial has already happened. That's how they managed to get a hearing on it under the collateral order doctrine.

ETA: someone made this good catch, though:

And Minnesota courts have not adopted the collateral order doctrine in criminal cases. State v. Ali, 806 N.W.2d 45, 47 (Minn. 2011).

Meanwhile, if you lose because of some evidentiary issue or the usual grab bag of points on appeal, the appeals court will address all your gripes at once post-trial, and can fix a wrongful conviction in a number of ways, from throwing it out entirely to sending it back for retrial with a mandate, to reducing the sentence, etc.

Even a simple case (like this) can have dozens of motions, objections, etc. and a trip to the appeals court for every one would cause havoc.

The irony of him sneeding about kiwis as his bender comes to an unconscious stop, while his civil case all his cases steadily progress against him - this might be the best Rekieta clip to date.

Smug Balldo is best Balldo because you know whenever he gets smug, he's about to get his shit pushed in the very next instant.