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.

[sneedem&feedem]

Viva and Barnes are coping and seething about the case.

 

[AnOminous]

When the Omnibus did not turn out as expected, Aaron not pleading guilty despite him (Nick) telling everyone that "they have Aaron dead to rights on the felony", which many people disagreed with, he simply did not show up for his own stream. (He was commenting on another stream and gaslighting instead)

This was an obviously laughable claim, not just to the practicing and non-practicing lawyers on YouTube, but the practicing and non-practicing lawyers on the Farms, and the non-practicing non-lawyers anywhere, and pretty much everyone with a functioning brain and even some stupid people not quite as stupid as Nick.

Unlike Nick's own Franks hearing motion, the felony against Aaron wasn't absolutely butt-fuck retarded, but it was by no means "dead to rights" except in the fool's paradise that is Nick's life.

 

[Desktop User2]

Yes, they discussed this during a stream on October 28th 2022. I've been working on a Kayla OP and am having some issues keeping track of what I have(n't) posted here.

Nick had just finished a toast and Divinity "ripped one" on a bong. This caused Kayla to become enamored with her.

Nick told Kayla that she could do it too, but Kayla was worried her kids might find out. Kayla then promptly says that her kids are only allowed to watch her on her own channel (the one whose channel thumbnail depicts her stepping on Nick).

Nick asks Kayla if she would mind if their kids did drugs at 18, Kayla says no and that she hopes they do it with her. Kayla continues to struggle with the hypothetical of the kids being old enough and then says that she prefers her kids to be 21 when they do drugs so that their brains have time to mature (her brain is mature enough to handle it, lol).

Nick changes the subject to whisky drinking and Legal Vices talks about the specialness of firsts with his children, but limits it to cigars and drinking.

Say hi to Sean.

View attachment 6469798

This stream was painful to sit through, as many of the streams with Kayla are. She blames the ADHD. Couldn't be that her love of weed and other substances have taken their toll making it difficult for her to think (let alone function).

"I´d love our kids to become addicts" - I´m paraphrasing - is a hell of a statement, specially in retrospect knowing what we know now.
Kayla: "I´d hope they do it (rip a bong after they are 1 with me"

HOLY SHIT!

 

[Vibralldo]

Yes, they discussed this during a stream on October 28th 2022. I've been working on a Kayla OP and am having some issues keeping track of what I have(n't) posted here.

Nick had just finished a toast and Divinity "ripped one" on a bong. This caused Kayla to become enamored with her.

Nick told Kayla that she could do it too, but Kayla was worried her kids might find out. Kayla then promptly says that her kids are only allowed to watch her on her own channel (the one whose channel thumbnail depicts her stepping on Nick).

Nick asks Kayla if she would mind if their kids did drugs at 18, Kayla says no and that she hopes they do it with her. Kayla continues to struggle with the hypothetical of the kids being old enough and then says that she prefers her kids to be 21 when they do drugs so that their brains have time to mature (her brain is mature enough to handle it, lol).

Nick changes the subject to whisky drinking and Legal Vices talks about the specialness of firsts with his children, but limits it to cigars and drinking.

Say hi to Sean.

View attachment 6469798

This stream was painful to sit through, as many of the streams with Kayla are. She blames the ADHD. Couldn't be that her love of weed and other substances have taken their toll making it difficult for her to think (let alone function).

Maybe Kayla was the one that gave the kid coke after all

Both Nick and Kayla should go against the wall just in case.

 

[Rodeo Roadrunner]

Nick changes the subject to whisky drinking and Legal Vices talks about the specialness of firsts with his children, but limits it to cigars and drinking.

Is it just me or is haveing your first drink or cigar with your kid just strange? Maybe it is because I don't drink or smoke, but I don't understand why you would want to introduce your children to booze or smoking, even in a controlled environment of 'just a sip of whiskey' or 'one puff of a cigar.' How is that cool at all?

 

[PuffyPopcorn]

Viva and Barnes are coping and seething about the case.

Been looking forward to Barnes finally talking about it. Hope it is as entertaining as "TYT 2016 Election night stream".

 

[Vibralldo]

Is it just me or is haveing your first drink or cigar with your kid just strange? Maybe it is because I don't drink or smoke, but I don't understand why you would want to introduce your children to booze or smoking, even in a controlled environment of 'just a sip of whiskey' or 'one puff of a cigar.' How is that cool at all?

Giving your kid his first beer is a relatively normal thing to do (even a little early at like 16)

Giving your kid his first bong hit or bump of coke (at 8 years old) is not and behavior that should get you put against the wall and shot

 

[Swole McPole]

Nick let the Vic crowdfunding go to his head. Here is a clip of him proclaiming every practicing attorney would fall over themselves to represent Balldo in a free speech lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States against the MN Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.

"Do you think I will talk about this in the background? I will talk about it every day. I will grift every day. And I will fight every day for the right of every attorney out there to dose up their kids with cocaine in order to find off the discomfort from hunger at not having any food in the house."

Hmm. He's gone awfully quiet of late. Do you think he's figured out that shouting his big yap off over the internet might not be in his best interests?

"And I'm here to help you. Even though you hate me. You're so jealous, you're so goddam jealous that someone can get people to listen to them while you can't.."

We're all listening, Nick. Why have you gone quiet? This should be your greatest moment. You need to show all those practicing lawyers what lames they are, and how off beam their legal analysis is compared to your brillant and insightful analysis. If you've lost your bottle, try looking between your ass cheeks. That's where it was the last time I saw it.

 

[Doctor John B. Zyklon]

Is it just me or is haveing your first drink or cigar with your kid just strange? Maybe it is because I don't drink or smoke, but I don't understand why you would want to introduce your children to booze or smoking, even in a controlled environment of 'just a sip of whiskey' or 'one puff of a cigar.' How is that cool at all?

Drinking is a good one, imo. Early exposure normalizes it. Those with an upbringing like that, myself included, didn't have the "oh yeah 21 let's get smashed" parties, alcohol was just "normal".
I could see sharing a cigar or pipe with a kid (your kid, not saying a child) if it's something you both share or you find important and offer to share.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Viva and Barnes are coping and seething about the case.

Barnes: "Well there was a request for a Franks hearing, so if you get a Franks hearing it usually means the case is getting dismissed right out of the gate, but they are tough to get with a lot of judges. But it doesn't mean the judge's decision is correct."

*Viva grins smugly and nods sagely into the camera like the lame faggot he is*

Barnes: "The fact that a judge says something tells you nothing about the law! It tells you what people in power do, nothing about principle!"

And then he does an immediate jump to Trump, because its all about principle and all the judges are absolute morons and constantly wrong about the law. While he (Barnes) is always right.

He then proceeds to explain to us how we are all retards who cheer for Nick having his civil liberties stripped away because we dislike him, insinuating once again that Nick is the poor victim of the tyrannical state.

These two talking heads are absolutely insufferable. Barnes has no idea what the fuck he is talking about. He pretends that we all just agree with the judge because its the judge saying it, ignoring that EVERYONE predicted the exact outcome before the judge made a ruling. Finest gaslighting and idiotic philosophical sperging and ignoring the facts of the case. He pretends the Franks hearing was unjustly denied and should have been allowed on principle to cross examine the police officer, not even talking a second about the evidence.

I just pray that his ideas are what Nick will base his Appeal on. He would just burn more money.
Barnes is the biggest fucking moron I have heard talk about law ever.

Frei ended it with the claim that they all assumed it was getting denied anyway and it is not a big deal.

 

[Owlbear]

Viva and Barnes are coping and seething about the case.

Barnes is rocking the Myspace angles to hide how rotund he actually is. Does someone have a clip or timestamp for the Rekieta section? I am not all that inclined to watch 2 hours of these faggots to find a minute of coping and sneeding.

 

[TheLastJoestar]

since we're sharing:

I didn't go the normal route. For Me, I found Nick boring AF around the Depp/Heard Streams. I had a basic understanding of his Lolcow status from the farms but I always assumed the farms was slightly exaggerating. I stumbled back into it when Nick and co started feeding drama over EJ's ISOM comic.

Vito started the gay ops: He went from talking shit about ISOM to trying to release pages on Twitter then bitching about censorship when hit with a DMCA. Eric was then hit with a retarded lawsuit that seemed to have come from a circle of extreme haters trying to stir legal drama.

That tied back to Dick Masterson whom I already found a disgusting individual who only wanted to stir up E-drama. In this case it's disgusting because hundreds of thousands of dollars went into this company, only for some no-name balding unfunny faggot to try and have it ruined by frivolous lawsuits.

That's around when Nick starts talking shit on his stream which I'm not made aware of until EJ mentions a certain "non-practicing Lawyer" who pretends to be his friend (I assumed he was talking about Nick since they shared some audience overlap) - I watch Nick's stream - he tangents about how people always assume he's picking a side when he's the most neutral party ever and he wishes Eric a million Dollahs.

Long drama Short, Nick has a cope stream and any allusions I had to Nick being a well-meaning but now boring man are gone. I genuinely believe that first july rant stream he did was the end of the Rackets.

 

[Doctor John B. Zyklon]

*Viva grins smugly and nods sagely into the camera like the lame faggot he is*

Was he always like this? Did I have a blind spot because it wasn't about Rekieta?

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Was he always like this? Did I have a blind spot because it wasn't about Rekieta?

Yes, he has people to repeat shit for his echo chamber and he grins like a retard high on 3 different drug cocktails.

Giving your kid his first beer is a relatively normal thing to do (even a little early at like 16)

Welcome to Germany, where legal drinking age for Beer and Wine is 16.

Barnes is rocking the Myspace angles to hide how rotund he actually is. Does someone have a clip or timestamp for the Rekieta section? I am not all that inclined to watch 2 hours of these faggots to find a minute of coping and sneeding.

It is known as the "Fat Girl Angle Shot"

 

[Boingboingboingboi]

This was an obviously laughable claim, not just to the practicing and non-practicing lawyers on YouTube, but the practicing and non-practicing lawyers on the Farms, and the non-practicing non-lawyers anywhere, and pretty much everyone with a functioning brain and even some stupid people not quite as stupid as Nick.

Unlike Nick's own Franks hearing motion, the felony against Aaron wasn't absolutely butt-fuck retarded, but it was by no means "dead to rights" except in the fool's paradise that is Nick's life.

nick is confident in a way that only someone who has never truly suffered consequences for being wrong could be.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

nick is confident in a way that only someone who has never truly suffered consequences for being wrong could be.

If Nick is still getting his advice from Barnes that this is a case about civil rights and the constitution, then he will manage to go to prison for 25 years at the end of this.

If Barnes is not just making up bullshit for the stream and truly thinks they have an actual case here, it not only means that Barnes has some kind of brain disease that is slowly eating his brain matter, since that is the only explanation anyone could come to this conclusion, it also means that Nick and White are on board with this bullshit and will appeal the decision.

Not once did Barnes even talk about the actual evidentiary standard that has to be met to even get to a Franks hearing, because they presented NOTHING. He also did not comment on the fact that his bitchboy White fucked up the entire case by failing to make any further motions regarding other things like probable cause.

If White and Barnes spun up this defense strategy then Nick has a case for ineffectual representation, because those two morons are not even litigating the actual case, they see a moron who can be talked into a civil rights case for them to make bank on and milk the trust fund.

 

[Permanent Resident Cope]

Does someone have a clip or timestamp for the Rekieta section?

It was at 1:56:40

 

[AnOminous]

I found Nick boring AF around the Depp/Heard Streams.

That was mostly when I stopped watching. Not because I disagreed with anything. I thought it was obvious Depp was more sinned against than sinning, by far, and didn't really need to be preached at on the subject. Heard was obviously a lying BPD nightmare who was responsible for the bulk of the actual physical abuse, while Depp was guilty at most of being a drug-addled degenerate who maybe responded badly to being in a relationship with a total psychopath.

It was more that the content was just in wine mom territory already and once I'd made up my mind on it, I wasn't really interested in gossip about Hollywood celebrities unless it was funny.

However, it was an enormous success for Nick and all he had to do to keep reaping the benefits of it was literally almost anything other than what he did.

Then it went from "jeez I used to watch this guy I hope he pulls up" to "nope looks like he's full lolcow now" to "wow he's an absolute piece of shit too" to "lmao a cow like Montagraph is now publicly ass-raping this loser" to "I hope he dies" (probably the Dear John stream or so) to "wow he is snorting coke and wasted out of his mind on stream insulting a judge on his case" to "LMAO LMAO HE GOT ARRESTED HE IS SO FUCKED LOL!"

And then the subsequent digging into lower levels of Hell like his daughter testing positive for cocaine.

But he's definitely going to tell the full story some day of how that was totally okay and he had nothing to do with it somehow.

If White and Barnes spun up this defense strategy then Nick has a case for ineffectual representation, because those two morons are not even litigating the actual case, they see a moron who can be talked into a civil rights case for them to make bank on and milk the trust fund.

I disagree. Whether he's a good lawyer or not, Nick is currently a lawyer. He has a degree in law. He has practiced, at least a little. He has made a million dollars as a legal commentator.

From context and inference, it appears entirely likely that Nick, an actual lawyer, probably actually insisted on the very defense he got. While if a layperson demanded his representative do something utterly idiotic, the lawyer would be obligated to advise against it, but do it if the client insisted (or withdraw from representation if the irreconcilable conflict forbade counsel from doing it), Nick is a lawyer.

He is presumed to be competent until proven otherwise. A lawyer representing another lawyer who insists on (and maybe even actually hired that specific lawyer for) a particular defense more or less has to go along with it. They are less obligated to try to dissuade an idiot lawyer from his deliberate obtusity.

Nick deliberately hired a Barneswalker and if he got a Barneswalker defense, he got what he paid for, even if he did it with a cocaine-charred water-filled brain with worms in it.

 

[Boingboingboingboi]

It was at 1:56:40

i never listened to barnes talk very much before but my god is he insufferable.

tl;dr - barnes' argument is basically that the judge is wrong and people who think he is right do so only because they defer to his power and believe that all decisions by all judges are right. according to barnes, there is no principled reason why anyone would think the franks hearing should have been denied.

with friends like these....

 

[3MMA]

Nick let the Vic crowdfunding go to his head. Thats right, the greatest law firms in the land will be salivating at the idea of serving Lord Balldo in exchange for ‘exposure’ and ‘handouts’. But not the Superchats, currently those go to the “Coke for April’s Silence Fund”.
View attachment 6469813
Full elissaclips™:

What a great clip that is. He really thought he was so much better than the other Law Tube streamers to offer them (most with much more experience than him) exposure. The entire clip you linked showcases how Balldo’s ego grew to such gargantuan proportions that it left no room for anything else to develop in his mind. I couldn’t resist the sirens call to make a brief clip of my own from that footage. Pure rage is always lurking underneath the surface of the Cuckpope.

“Who post their lies on Twitter, for the public!”