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 .
We have as much a right to be reminded on zoom info as anyone.
As annoying as it is that people with extra chromosomes disrupt the proceedings, these boomer-ass fucking courts need to get their shit together and not allow this bullshit in the first place.

How the fuck do these mental retards not get that only people who NEED to talk in the hearing have the ability to do it?
 
We have as much a right to be reminded on zoom info as anyone.
It doesn't do us any good if the dabbleverse assholes like Chad Zomock gets everyone shut out. If you know someone is solid, then fine, share it with them. But it has been demonstrated that it is a mistake to post it publicly.

If there are a few good people, we can all enjoy their livestreams.
 
Reviewing some old documents for a post, including the Kandiyohi County Sheriffs Office Incident Report (associated with the search warrant).

Can someone explain why only four of the five children are listed as "victims" while one is listed as a "mentioned"?

View attachment 6575660
I believe that child was not in the home at the time the house was raided. I think the mentioned minor is their teenage son.
 
  • Like
Reactions: koos koets
As annoying as it is that people with extra chromosomes disrupt the proceedings, these boomer-ass fucking courts need to get their shit together and not allow this bullshit in the first place.

How the fuck do these mental retards not get that only people who NEED to talk in the hearing have the ability to do it?
That's exactly what I was thinking. Especially in the Rekieta case, how have they not learned by now this bull shit is bound to happen?
 
But it has been demonstrated that it is a mistake to post it publicly.
The information was posted publicly by the courts. Chad is involved pretty heavily with these guys so the odds are good he would have found it either way. I just hope it involves him in a way that's funny if he's going to do the thing.
 
Preliminary transcript info. If everything continues according to plan, I should have it by the end of this work week. It cost me a pretty penny; $50 to be exact. Anyone that wants to pitch in as a thank you, can send me bitcoin here:
bc1qzhxv4ummn7kdxmtqdsxfk9ntu8claavhdzdpv3
Transcript is done
 

Attachments

How the fuck do these mental retards not get that only people who NEED to talk in the hearing have the ability to do it?
The judge was hearing multiple cases, so there were multiple different defendants and lawyers in the channel.

The administrative staff was trying to figure out who was who prior to the start of the court session. I heard the staff member repeatedly asking a zoom participant who they were and what their name was. The zoom caller did not reply. For all I know that was Chad Zomock playing coy before the start.

The court noted that there were a lot of people in the zoom call. It was probably too much for the admin to deal with.

I am guessing that the admin probably assumed that since the person did not answer, that the zoomer would be a polite observer. The admin is probably concerned about accidently locking out a lawyer, defendant or witness.
 
Kayla's next hearing is set for December 9th.
Screenshot 2024-10-30 001721.png
Screenshot 2024-10-30 001449.png
Screenshot 2024-10-30 001819.png
Also, my prediction for the hearing was completely correct.

Screenshot 2024-10-30 001904.png
Lmao
 
The court noted that there were a lot of people in the zoom call. It was probably too much for the admin to deal with.
I get the instant difficulty in coping with a flood of retards but this shit has happened before.

They need a process. Just using some retarded chinkware like Zoom is not going to cut it.

Otherwise this is going to happen for EVERY hearing. Or this dumbfuck faggot retard has guaranteed we don't get any more content.
 
I think it is because one of them was outside the home at the time of the “police raid.”
I would assume that child was the one in the car with Nick when he got pulled over, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe that child was not in the home at the time the house was raided. I think the mentioned minor is their teenage son.

That would make sense, but the "mentioned" son in question (A) was still in the home and counted among the children who were waiting outside with Kayla and April during the search. The eldest (C) was the only one unaccounted for and he is listed as a "victim".

Could be a simple error on the incident report, but I just wanted to be sure.

EDIT 1: also, it was one of his daughters who was in the car with Nick at the time of the search.

EDIT 2: Could it be that the other four were victims because there were sources close to all the children except one, meaning only the youngest son didn't have anyone reporting on him directly at the time?
 
Last edited:
It doesn't do us any good if the dabbleverse assholes like Chad Zomock gets everyone shut out. If you know someone is solid, then fine, share it with them. But it has been demonstrated that it is a mistake to post it publicly.

If there are a few good people, we can all enjoy their livestreams.


I get what you are saying but didn't feel any caution was needed is posting public information that is readily available if you know where to look.
 
Chad Zumock didn't shout shit. He was too much of a boomer to figure out zoom so he sniped WinBy2's stream of zoom court.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Viv7Nv-bQk at 1:55 Melton (and 9:55 WinBy2) claim it was Ian Hawk shouting, one of Meltons most loyal spergs.
Ian Hawk:
Fine. He probably didn’t do it. I was quick to accuse. He’s still a fucktard. Chad should take Nicks money and stay in his end of the pool.
 
So if Kayla gets the warrant tossed then does Nick win? Is there still a chance, balldo bros?!
Kayla is not getting the warrant tossed. This is just normal pre trial motion practice. If you win it you win. If you don't you are right back to where you started anyway.so may as well file the motion. Especially since it preserves an appealable argument.
 
Kayla is not getting the warrant tossed. This is just normal pre trial motion practice. If you win it you win. If you don't you are right back to where you started anyway.so may as well file the motion. Especially since it preserves an appealable argument.
gotcha. makes sense.

curious: can the judge point to his denial regarding the franks motion as precedent for the warrant being good? i imagine this happens frequently with multiple defendants busted on contraband or whatever from the same warrant. rather than dealing with multiple challenges to the warrant, can the judge decide the warrant is good and then use that decision as precedent for other challenges to the warrant from other defendants? (assuming there's no brand new evidence or circumstances unearthed) or is it just a separate matter and the judge will have to respond to the new arguments in as much detail as if he didn't uphold the warrant for nick's case?

i also realize that this is a general probable cause motion and not a request for franks, so they also would probably be treated differently for that reason alone.
 
Back