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

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?


  • Total voters
    1,268
  • Poll closed .
That seems to be a running theme with lawyers that have to deal with Rekieta. His defamation lawyer bitching on twitter comes to mind.
It's my fan theory that Randazza took Nick's case as revenge for Nick calling his law partner a faggot and is laughing his ass off milking the dumb fool for every cent he can.
 
Further Edit: Looks like Brian was hired by FWL very recently. Poor guy probably has no clue what he just stepped into.
Nvm I am retarded.
Iamretarded.PNG
 
34931.jpg

"Guys, guys, guys. You don't get it. You don't understand the law. I'm a lawyer.
This motion, this one's going to work. It's just like the other motion, but it's not like the other motion.
Those other lawyers, they don't know what they're talking about. Just wait, one day you'll hear my story.
The government, it's all a conspiracy against my free speech.
Oh, and fuck that nigger Pomplun."
 
Im suprised Nick has not stooped down to the level of Aaron force fed my kids cocaine and planted it around the house yet. Im sure it's next though.
Honestly I think some variation of this will be his defense when he goes to trial. It won’t work and hopefully he’ll get as much prison time as possible.
 
Funniest thing in the world would be DENIED comes back by end of day today or Monday, proving the judge no longer considers any of his bogus antics.
I think by far the funniest outcome would be if this appeal was granted. Nick's ego would explode. No amount of tardwrangling would be able to prevent him from gloating and owning the alogs. Then at the actual Franks hearing he would, of course, be blown the fuck out and be right back in the same position.
 
What does he mean by "it will end up bad, in both ways, if the things going around don't stop soon" that sounds rather ominous.
Ominous and unprofessional. Reading between the lines he is saying he doesn't believe his own filing but he couldn't/wouldn't talk Nick out of it. Irrespective of whether it is sanctionable I'd want my lawyer to have more discretion, even if he had that conversation with me in private.
 
Last edited:
Ominous and unprofessional. Reading between the lines he is saying he doesn't believe his own filing but he couldn't/wouldn't talk Nick out of it. Even if that's not sanctionable I'd want my lawyer to have more discretion, even if he had that conversation with me in private.
Oh, I'm sure he will get a shower call about it 💦📞
 
How long do we potentially have to wait until a decision?
It's a request for the appeals court to even hear an appeal, and not actually an appeal itself, so hopefully not long. I would assume it's not customary for them to put the brakes to the lower court's process, unless there's a really good reason. And this ain't it.

I still think it's funny their argument is "Look, my client willfully hid that livestream, so the video couldn't been "taken off" my client's channel."

I wonder if they really don't understand that when the detective swore on the warrant the video was "taken off" of Nick's channel, he means COG took it off his channel. I can see how the language can confusing, but there simply is no lie. That wording can apply to either instance.
 
Back