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: 65 21.3%
  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.3%
  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 83 27.2%
  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 48 15.7%
  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 105 34.4%

  • Total voters
    305
Didn’t he literally say in his last stream “when the franks hearing gets granted”?
I could be wrong, but he seemed pretty confident
I don't remember him saying that, and in the transcript I saved, I didn't find that. But it may be phrased in some other way by the transcript.
He talked about a previous Franks case that he claimed he won (spoiler: he didn't won the Franks argument specifically).

But he did say that the practicing lawyers who thought the Franks challenge wouldn't be granted had BAD LEGAL ANALYSIS.
 
"It's God's money. I don't need it bc I'll always be fine. I learned how to take care of my family long ago."

Three sentences: three entirely independent ways Nick is a liar, both to others and to himself.

Efficient Delusion Award of the day.

Rekieta implies that @Potentially Criminal and other LawTubers knew that he "was a crackhead" when he was still popular:
View attachment 6547063
(Archive)
Classic narc.
 
This is the closest we're going to get to an admission isn't it?
Earlier in the thread and earlier in the tweeting session he already directly confirmed (by replying "He was") to a question asking if he was on coke when writing his pinned NYE tweet. The fact that he directly confirmed drug use, something he was explicitly not willing to do before, is the strongest sign yet that he intends to or already has accepted a plea deal.
 
He talked about a previous Franks case that he claimed he won (spoiler: he didn't).
You can actually argue he won the case (by getting a dismissal), but it wasn't because of Franks. He got a probable cause dismissal in that case for his client, but he lost the motion for a Franks hearing.

He was doing some slight of hand bullshit where he wanted people to believe that because he made a Franks motion in a case, and that case was later dismissed, he won thanks to Franks, and is now a Franks expert.

Worth noting that's not armchair lawyer Kiwi analysis either. @Potentially Criminal (actual practicing lawyer) found the case, or had somebody find it, and pointed out what happened there.

Nick lied. Again. His only experience with Franks hearings is not getting one. First for a client of his, and then for himself.
 
More Rekieta comments on Melton's behavior towards Aaron's kids:

View attachment 6547045
(Archive)
Nick doesn't care if Melton lusts over Aaron's kids: (X/A)
rekietalaw-tweet4.png
 
Last edited:
More Rekieta comments on Melton's behavior towards Aaron's kids:

View attachment 6547045
(Archive)
Don't pass go, don't collect 200 superchats. Straight to the fucking wall with you nick. I'm assuming you're doing this to make him tempted enough to beat your fucking ass so you have one less witness at the trial (because admitting to being a cuck bitch didn't work). Aaron, if you're reading this try not to bury him IRL even though it's tempting, save it for court.
 
I'm guessing he's accepted a plea and he views this as (relative) freedom to behave however he wants again.

I know nothing about the law and how or if a plea can get rescinded, but I'd bet Nick will do everything he can to thinly skirt that line, until his confidence overflows again and he crosses some other boundaries. And I bet what he wants to do most is taunt Aaron both personally, and get Aaron to slip legally.

He has learned nothing but more ideas to game the system. His poor, poor children. He will use them as pawns as long as he can; this is a man that deliberately financed a paedophile because he's bitter about his ex-boyfriend and others he views as "less than" exposing him (in his mind, "having it out for him").

Imagine being such pathetic an excuse for a "man". And this is all his legacy will be. Failed lawyer, failed man, failed parent, failed human. And he'll just keep pretending it's exactly the way he wanted it.
 
Last edited:
Nick doesn't care if Melton lusts over Aaron's kids:
View attachment 6547200
It's Ralph all over again. Old me from 5 years ago would contact him and beseech him to pull his head out of ass.

Now I just sit back and laugh. Nick consistently picks the worst allies. It's uncanny. I don't think he has a single one left that has any redeeming value whatsoever.
 
Earlier in the thread and earlier in the tweeting session he already directly confirmed (by replying "He was") to a question asking if he was on coke when writing his pinned NYE tweet. The fact that he directly confirmed drug use, something he was explicitly not willing to do before, is the strongest sign yet that he intends to or already has accepted a plea deal.
While I wouldn't be surprised by a plea acceptance at this point, as he could still keep the lie going saying that he "HAD to do it" as others have said already, but I'm a little surprised by the actual admission that the coke did in fact go up his large nose.
 
I'm guessing he's accepted a plea and he views this as (relative) freedom to behave however he wants again.

I know nothing about the law and how or if a plea can get rescinded, but I'd bet Nick will do everything he can to thinly skirt that line, until his confidence overflows again and he crosses some other boundaries. And I bet what he wants to do most is taunt Aaron, and get Aaron to slip legally.

He has learned nothing but more ideas to game the system. What a disgusting piece of shit; his poor, poor children. He will use them as pawns as long as he can; this is a man that deliberately financed paedophile because he's bitter about his ex-boyfriend.
Nick getting out of this thinking he's somehow "WON" will only lead to a worse crash (into a tree on the way back from a drunken bender at the grand reopening and rebranding of the Gay20s) further down the line.
 
But he did say that the practicing lawyers who thought the Franks challenge wouldn't be granted had BAD LEGAL ANALYSIS.
I wouldn't have been surprised if he had gotten the hearing as a sop, but he would have lost it. The Barneswalker didn't have much to do anything with as far as meeting the actual standard for granting it, and on top of that the filing was garbage. That doesn't really mean you necesesarily lose though. Judges are not supposed to say "well your argument is right but your filing is dogshit so you lose anyway."

And they're often reluctant to deny some procedural thing for a defendant when it won't change the outcome anyway, because they want the case to be over when it's done, not to linger around in appeals for another year or two. This leads to some "wrong" decisions that are pragmatically correct in the long run.

That said I was thrilled when the response was not just "no" but "HELL NAW MUTHAFUCKA!"
Nick lied. Again. His only experience with Franks hearings is not getting one. First for a client of his, and then for himself.
Another of those TechNickality lies. Yes, he filed such a motion. Yes, he won the case. The lie he wanted you to believe was that he won it because of that specific argument. Then when you look it up, since someone inevitably would have, "I NEVER SAID THAT YOU DUMB KIWIFAGS!"
 
Back