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.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

What would the outcome of the harassment restraining order be?

  • A WIN for the Toe against Patrick Melton.

    Votes: 63 18.4%
  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 92 26.9%
  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 54 15.8%
  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 129 37.7%

  • Total voters
    342
No, the fact finding only applies to the motions before the judge. The defendant has the right to jury trial on all matters of fact.
Thanks, I believe you said something like that before, I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly.
So they can still lie their asses of and pretend "that was not coke" as their strategy, even if a lab tech will testify that it was, but they cannot challenge the admission of the evidence because that part of the pre-trial motions ended with the findings of fact. Do I have that correct?



Regarding the Joe judgement, I found the order and uploaded the file HERE in the lawtube thread.
The judgement is for 117639$, I imagine the youtube commentor made a typo with the 1 and 7 there.
 
It was a while ago but he said that he said he disliked how Lawtube changed from an ethereal idea into a more centralised thing with "rules" and "conduct". It was around the time Legal Bytes was "disciplining" DUI Guy for acting dramatic in court.
To be fair he was tarding out. Even nool said if you showed up to court as a kiwi and tarded out you'd get banned or at least mocked.
Thanks, I believe you said something like that before, I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly.
So they can still lie their asses of and pretend "that was not coke" as their strategy, even if a lab tech will testify that it was, but they cannot challenge the admission of the evidence because that part of the pre-trial motions ended with the findings of fact. Do I have that correct?
The evidence can be admitted but they can't stop Nick from standing up and committing perjury, or from casting shade on the validity of the tests, if they can find some expert tard to testify. Now, they could prosecute Nick for perjury if he did that, but more likely he'd just lose because everyone knows it was coke, everyone will have seen him obviously on coke, and the evidence it was coke is absolutely overwhelming.

So he can lie and lose. He has the right to insist on a jury.

The rare exception is if some factual issue is clearly obvious because the defense has presented absolutely no evidence at all to contest it, at the close of presenting evidence. However, in general, they can't foreclose arguing a fact the defendant has an absolute right to contest, in the same way they can't just dispense with a trial because the defendant is obviously guilty.
 
Fucking copelords. Its a massive fucking defeat.

Nick is now Nelson Mandela to these dumbfucks.
it took him that long to say "judge wrong, thats how power works?" like they didn't even mention the specific things rekeita was contesting about the warrant or talk about the warrant at all, or the fact the pre-trial stuff is pretty much done. I think the big issue the pro rekeita side has is they can't talk about any of the details, like they cant discuss Rekeitas specifics in the case because they're so so bad, all they can do is pontificate about potential corruption that so far doesn't seem to exist.

everyone else's videos actually discussed the particulars and "why" it was dismissed, barnes just says "judge has power, doesn't mean he's right" and doesn't discuss any of the facts whatsoever. Even Rekeita during cope streams tried to deal with the facts a little bit, badly of course but still.
 
Fucking copelords. Its a massive fucking defeat.

Nick is now Nelson Mandela to these dumbfucks.
Even if you don't like who he cozied up to (commies), Mandela was at least fighting for something.

Nick is fighting for nothing more than a perceived right to be a degenerate faggot.

So uh, Nick's appearance on Joe's stream ended up resulting in a blowback effect with someone pointing out that Joe lost a court case for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by making a "false or misleading statement" on an Elissa Clips' video (farms crosslink).
I wonder if being in sustained contact with medallion wearers tranfsers the curse...
View attachment 6472807
Somebody needs to tell Joe the "Rekieta effect" is dead. If he needs money, it's in alogging Rekieta these days.
 
Somebody needs to tell Joe the "Rekieta effect" is dead. If he needs money, it's in alogging Rekieta these days.
I wonder if the usual suspects will do a review of Joe's case.

I'd love for lawtube to go over Joe's shady behavior and business practices.
Would be a great back to back feature - first Nick and then Joe.
 
Somebody needs to tell Joe the "Rekieta effect" is dead. If he needs money, it's in alogging Rekieta these days.
Here's the case:

Looks pretty much like what it sounded like, Jews jewily jewing each other.

This hoot from the intro to the complaint:
Screenshot 2024-09-30 151916.png
 
Last edited:
Joe being another piece of shit is completely par for the Lawtube course.

He and Nick can host the "Broke & Broker - Lawtube Podcast" from Van in a McDonalds parking lot for free Wifi.
And the podcast keeps having the video feed cut every 10 minutes or so because they keep getting kicked off the wifi due to consuming too much bandwidth.

Plus you can hear knocking on the van doors by security telling them their 30 minutes of loitering while consuming food are over and they have to leave.

Sorry, your post just made me imagine this and it made me laugh.
 
And the podcast keeps having the video feed cut every 10 minutes or so because they keep getting kicked off the wifi due to consuming too much bandwidth.

Plus you can hear knocking on the van doors by security telling them their 30 minutes of loitering while consuming food are over and they have to leave.

Sorry, your post just made me imagine this and it made me laugh.
Things go away when their van gets towed and they can't afford to pay the fees
 
Actually, that's another funny thing: He really didn't get a Barnes defense. None of Barnes's arguments were raised in the motions for a Franks hearing. They went with the bullshit about the video being an altered copy of the cokestream.
Chef's kiss was Barnes telling Viva they were longshots he didn't expect to win. They were filed on "principle."

Nick has to be thinking 'WTF? I wish you told me that before I wrote the check and decided to focus on the Franks hearing exclusively. I'm not seeing how your wins on principle are going to keep me out of prison. Are all your constitutional challenges things you don't expect to win either? What happened to my "very strong case?"'
 
Chef's kiss was Barnes telling Viva they were longshots he didn't expect to win. They were filed on "principle."

Nick has to be thinking 'WTF? I wish you told me that before I wrote the check and decided to focus on the Franks hearing exclusively. I'm not seeing how your wins on principle are going to keep me out of prison. Are all your constitutional challenges things you don't expect to win either? What happened to my "very strong case?"'
Putting all eggs into the basket of the long shot is exactly what you advise a client who you know will pay your exorbitant legal fees for the appeal, and has a trust fund that can be milked for all those juicy dollerinos.
 
Chef's kiss was Barnes telling Viva they were longshots he didn't expect to win. They were filed on "principle."
Remember when that fat buffoon was bloviating on and on about how anyone who thought this motion was a pathetic Hail Mary weren't just wrong, but were utterly incompetent at best and lying at worst?

Yeah what a fucking pile of shit Barnes is.
 
It was a while ago but he said that he said he disliked how Lawtube changed from an ethereal idea into a more centralised thing with "rules" and "conduct".
Well what did they expect from a bunch of lawyers?
In all seriousness that's an interesting take, though. I can also see a bit of Rackets's absolute hatred of being told what to do seeping through here ("I will NOT wear shirt NOR shoes! FUCK your sign!").
 
What do you think the next goal post moving cope will be? My prediction is they'll say they knew this franks thing would fail and they planned to appeal anyway.
It was all a set up from the start.
Aaron organized it by poisoning other people against Nick and planted the coke, or collaborated with police who then planted it.

The Franks was going to get denied because the judges are all in on it too.
The only way out is Killdozer, but Nick only has the Rustang, so even his last resort is going nowhere.

Time to suck on the rifling and pull the trigger Balldo.
 
It was all a set up from the start.
Aaron organized it by poisoning other people against Nick and planted the coke, or collaborated with police who then planted it.

The Franks was going to get denied because the judges are all in on it too.
The only way out is Killdozer, but Nick only has the Rustang, so even his last resort is going nowhere.

Time to suck on the rifling and pull the trigger Balldo.
If Aaron planted the coke and poisoned people against Nick, it was all under the orders of the Grand Dragon of Texas Eric July. In fact, the police would have to have gotten permission and authorization to arrest Nick from July
 
Last edited:
Well what did they expect from a bunch of lawyers?
In all seriousness that's an interesting take, though. I can also see a bit of Rackets's absolute hatred of being told what to do seeping through here ("I will NOT wear shirt NOR shoes! FUCK your sign!").
In retrospect I see it too, the start of being more open about it too, but at the time it seemed like a sage idea from a trad dad who seemed to have his life in order. How wrong that idea turned out to be...

To be fair he was tarding out. Even nool said if you showed up to court as a kiwi and tarded out you'd get banned or at least mocked.
In fairness to DUI Guy and something that Nick mentioned too, because it was a response to a particular burn from a witness to Heard's lawyer the entire court room basically went "WHOAAA". Unprofessional? Maybe, but he was tarding alongside the court. I don't feel he should have been raked over the coals for going with the flow.
 
Putting all eggs into the basket of the long shot is exactly what you advise a client who you know will pay your exorbitant legal fees for the appeal, and has a trust fund that can be milked for all those juicy dollerinos.
Oh but he screwed himself there too. Probably the best challenge to probable cause was the deputy relying on his training as a DRE to determine Nick was on drugs while streaming. Nick didn't raise it so he may not be able to appeal it. Lost forever.

I suspect entertainment lawyers would not like their clients subject to search warrants because of a convincing portrayal of drug use recorded on screen. Nick should have pushed harder on that item even if the whole warrant would still stand.
 
Oh but he screwed himself there too. Probably the best challenge to probable cause was the deputy relying on his training as a DRE to determine Nick was on drugs while streaming. Nick didn't raise it so he may not be able to appeal it. Lost forever.

I suspect entertainment lawyers would not like their clients subject to search warrants because of a convincing portrayal of drug use recorded on screen. Nick should have pushed harder on that item even if the whole warrant would still stand.
Funnily enough, his best chance to appeal might be for ineffective counsel, using Barnes streams as evidence.

[EDIT] Fucking Halloween theme, I press F5 and my browser changes color. WTF
 
This became more of a legal post than I expected. It might belong on the other thread, however, a few pages back the Alford plea was being discussed here. @AnOminous is correct. Alfords are not uncommon... but by how much? I cannot readily find data on national, state or county numbers so let's go to the West Central Tribune, Kandiyohi County. It's paywalled, and I payed.

Two people originally charged with criminal sexual conduct against four children were sentenced to prison terms of 33 months and 60 months after reaching plea agreements.

Rachelle Lynn Hasbrook, 33, of Raymond, and Aaron Matthew Vadner, 41, of Paynesville, tendered Alford guilty pleas earlier this year .

Alford pleas are used for defendants to deny the charges against them on the record, but acknowledge if evidence collected against them were presented at a trial it would likely result in a guilty verdict.

Rachelle Lynn Hasbrook, 33, of Raymond , pleaded guilty to four felony counts of child endangerment. In exchange, four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct were dismissed.

Hasbrook was sentenced Aug. 28 in Kandiyohi County District Court to four concurrent sentences, the longest being a prison sentence of 33 months. She was sentenced to 18, 23 and 28 months on the three other counts of child endangerment. Hasbrook must register as a predatory offender.

Aaron Matthew Vadner, 41, of Paynesville , was sentenced in a separate hearing Aug. 28 for three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Per the plea petition, four counts of felony child endangerment were dismissed.

Vadner was sentenced concurrently to 36, 48, and 60 months in prison with credit for 148 days already served. Vadner also must register as a predatory offender, and he will also serve a 10-year conditional release period following his confinement.

Hasbrook and Vadner were arrested in 2021 after law enforcement conducted an investigation into allegations that they had sexual contact with four children in 2018 and 2019 when living in Atwater.

The children alleged Vadner and Hasbrook would initiate different types of sexual contact, including anal and oral sex, according to court documents. All four children were under the age of 13 at the time of the alleged incidents.

Wentzell said while Hasbrook had been a victim of abuse herself and has taken the proper steps to address her mental health, she “failed miserably” to protect the children from the egregious actions listed in court records.

A member of Hasbrook’s family was present in court to read her statements to Hasbrook and Vadner.

“Why is it so hard to take responsibility? Even at our urging you could not plead guilty, but only said there was enough evidence against you,” she said in reference to the Alford pleas.

The family member said that she and other family members had given advice multiple times and she regretted not being able to intervene more.

“It took eight years too long for Kandiyohi County to take the children away,” she said.

The woman described awful scenes of abuse and neglect, getting so emotional Judge Wentzell had to instruct her to slow down and encouraged her to take her time.

“Eight years you molested, beat and neglected these kids and you still have the nerve to say you did nothing wrong,” she continued. “Because of you there will always be one more therapy … one more appointment to mend them … if it were up to me you would receive 25 to life.”

Vadner said, “I have no comment,” when given the opportunity to speak before his sentence was ordered.

Hasbrook used her opportunity to say that she was picky in finding a therapist, and was continuing to address her mental health. She said, “I just don’t want to be sick anymore.”

Under Minnesota law, convicted offenders must serve at least two-thirds of their sentence in prison.

According to the Minnesota Department of Corrections, Hasbrook's expected release date from the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Shakopee is June 30, 2025.

Vadner's expected release date is Aug. 3, 2026. He is currently incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in St. Cloud.

NOTE: Wentzell cited the defendant's efforts to seek treatment when accepting the Alford and the resulting prison sentences. (What an ugly case! I want these parents shot.) A notable quote from a family member: “It took eight years too long for Kandiyohi County to take the children away”

— The Twin Cities man convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the assault of an employee at a Spicer hotel has been sentenced to nearly 29 years.

Ashir Hassan Kimbrough, 33, recently of Brooklyn Center and formerly of Champlin, was sentenced April 11 in Kandiyohi County District Court, more than two years after he was charged with threatening the female employee with a gun and sexually assaulting her.

Kimbrough had earlier pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct in the first-degree. As part of the plea agreement, two other charges were dismissed: a second count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon.

Kimbrough's guilty plea was a Norgaard plea, which a defendant enters when he says he has no memory of the circumstances of the crime but agrees there is a substantial likelihood of a guilty verdict from the evidence presented.

Judge Stephen Wentzell at sentencing ordered Kimbrough to serve 344 months of prison with credit for 17 days served.

The sentence is an upward durational departure, meaning more time than the presumptive term under state sentencing guidelines.

The defense had sought a lesser sentence: either probation instead of prison or less time than the presumptive prison sentence of 144 to 172 months.

Among the factors cited by the defense were Kimbrough's completion of chemical dependency treatment and a psychosexaul evaluation and that he had been accepted into an outpatient sexual offender and individual therapy.

Character references for Kimbrough, including letters from family members, state that Kimbrough has remained sober since seeking treatment.

Wentzell rejected the arguments, writing in a sentencing memorandum that "a probationary sentence would be grossly disproportionate and severely understate the severity" of the offense.

Further, Kimbrough when pleading guilty admitted to "Blakely factors," or aggravating factors that are presented in support of a more severe sentence — particular cruelty and zone of privacy.

Wentzell cited both factors in support of the aggravated sentence. The assault occurred in a private, employees-only area.

Wentzell detailed several of Kimbrough's actions that demonstrated cruelty, including striking the woman in the face, causing a fracture that continues to create medical complications. He also fired a handgun to gain compliance and other "statements and actions clearly rise to the level of psychological cruelty."

Sentencing conditions for Kimbrough include lifetime registration as a predatory offender in Minnesota. He will also be on conditional release for 10 years once he is released from prison. According to the Minnesota Department of Corrections, Kimbrough’s expected release date from Minnesota Correctional Facility in St. Cloud is May 6, 2043.

According to the criminal complaint, law enforcement officers responded to a reported weapons complaint at 3:57 a.m. at a Spicer hotel on Feb. 27, 2022. When officers arrived at the scene, a female employee was found near the entrance of another hotel near the one where she worked.

The woman appeared to be very distraught, and a deputy noticed that she had purple and red bruising, and was walking with a noticeable limp. The woman told the officer that Kimbrough was the last hotel check-in for the night.

According to the complaint, the woman said Kimbrough made her feel uncomfortable by making statements toward her and following her around the hotel building after she checked him in.

She told police that she had advised Kimbrough to go to his room and that his behavior made her uncomfortable. According to the complaint, Kimbrough then left momentarily while the woman went to use an employee bathroom. When she exited the restroom, Kimbrough was outside.

The complaint states Kimbrough demanded the woman to perform oral sex on him before he allegedly threatened her with a gun and fired it inside the restroom. The woman told police that her ears were ringing as Kimbrough sexually assaulted her in the restroom, stating Kimbrough had punched her in the face and choked her during the assault.

During the Jan. 5 plea hearing, Kandiyohi County Attorney Kristen Pierce said that the woman had suffered small hemorrhages as a result of her injuries, including a fractured cheekbone.

Kimbrough was arrested at the Minneapolis International Airport the day after the assault was reported.

NOTE: In this case, Wentzell INCREASED the sentence despite accepting the Norgaard plea. "The sentence is an upward durational departure, meaning more time than the presumptive term under state sentencing guidelines." - West Central Tribune
...

In at least two other cases in the county where Alford pleas were REJECTED it was because victims objected. Wentzell was not the judge in these cases. If that's important for the Court, notably, there are no adult victims in Nick's case to object to an Alford. I assume the Guardian ad Litum would need to object on behalf of the child who tested positive. (Or her lawyer - I forget if she has one.) That seems like a long shot.

I only went three years into the West Central Tribune for cases. If there's a more efficient way to find Wentzell's Alford plea decisions, it could be a good predictor of the current state of affairs. @Potentially Criminal perhaps you know of a better way to find this information.

I wonder if that's how Judge Fischer found out about its vile contents and the repulsive shit Nick said.
I may have watched too much Law & Order in my youth, but I think detectives and prosecutors often have a chummy relationship. If true, I would think in a small county this would be ever more the case. So, by that deduction, the info would have traveled from Detective Pomplum (I assume he knows of the comments) > Kristin Pierce (or her boss) > Judge Fischer.

In fact, wouldn't Nick's vag liquor comments - if known by detectives - almost compel the unofficial disclosure because it could affect the legal proceedings if it came out after the trial? No detective or prosecutor wants a guilty ruling overturned for judicial bias.
 
Back