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 21.6%
  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.4%
  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 83 28.4%
  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 42 14.4%
  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 100 34.2%

  • Total voters
    292
he’s sucking dick in a van down by the river,
It's a Lincoln Navigator if I remember correctly, not a van, and he's probably doing that already.
He's already on this shit about Aaron cum drinking, and if he's following his usual MO of all the shit he accuses other people of being projection, (nerds, cucks, etc) he's probably got the same taste in cocktails as that cuck Steve Bonnell.
 
Kurt of Uncivil Law made an interesting comment today. He outright refused to speculate on any potential crimes committed by Nick Rekieta in reference to illicit access to Aaron Imholte's Google account, but he did speculate that the prosecution in Nick's drug case may hold off on a plea deal until further investigations are made in "theoretical" illicit access case to "keep the door open".

This indicates (if true), Nick may have fucked his own plea deal by trying to embarrass Aaron.

From about 25:45 onwards
Bro when you copy YouTube links over delete everything after "si" in the URL, it's a personally identifiable indicator Google adds to track you.
Just a heads up.
 
Last edited:
Kurt of Uncivil Law made an interesting comment today. He outright refused to speculate on any potential crimes committed by Nick Rekieta in reference to illicit access to Aaron Imholte's Google account, but he did speculate that the prosecution in Nick's drug case may hold off on a plea deal until further investigations are made in "theoretical" illicit access case to "keep the door open".

This indicates (if true), Nick may have fucked his own plea deal by trying to embarrass Aaron.

From about 25:45 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/live/Y8pDVCT_FUU?t=1545&si=RcdsLLbugB3ED-ry
I can't believe all of that was over trying to prove Aaron fakes chat donations. I mean, who gives a shit?

Funny though. I hope he does more things like that for my amusement
 
I personally think it was incidental and related to the uncleanliness. They don't do dishes in the Rekieta household. That means Nick lines up coke on a cookie plate. The 9 year old spends a lot of time in the master bedroom according Nick. Nick/Kayla gives her the coke plate to get cookies/snacks because she does get normal meals, just snacks. Someone with more knowledge of cocaine can comment on how it metabolizes by weight or blood volume and how much less cocaine it would take a child to show up as a regular user.
Assuming a 9 year old's liver is as efficient as an adult's liver, then an oral dose of coke would equate to twice, thrice the same dose for an adult, since the kid has two to three times less weight than an adult woman, but oral route is about twice less effective than intranasal, so whatever she ingested was IMHO the same strength of the same amount snorted by an adult . Interesting hypothesis but I doubt it, if one of the Balldos did the thing of puffing the coke off the plate and serving cookies on it to the kid, I don't think metabolites would show as highly as they did. It would also not explain why only 1 kid showed positive. Whatever coke dust is left on a dinner plate you half-assedly wipe off with a tissue beforehand is not enough to get even a kid high, especially not orally.

IMHO if Nick didn't drug her himself, then he left coke right in the open and the kid got into it when daddy and mommy were too busy fucking their respective sidepieces, and they were both pieces of shit who'd risk their kid dying of an heart attack or ischemia just so they could continue using drugs than to rush her to hospital and face legal repercussions later.

Kids her age ingest things all the time, you keep drain cleaners away from them 'cause they'll drink it thinking it's Coca Cola.
 
1. file whatever the fuck the client asks you to file, no matter how dogshit, because the client believes its in their best interest, and you just carry out their wishes.
To an extent, but I am not going to look like a tool for your ego. I still have to work in the court after you're long gone and my obligations to the Professional Rules are paramount.

2. refuse to file whatever the fuck your retard client asks you to file and risk getting fired/replaced in order to save yourself the embarrassment of filing dogshit
That's an acceptable outcome. That said, I am pretty good dealing with difficult clients.....at least I think so.

Wouldn't be the first time I fired a client and it won't be the last.

3. file whatever the fuck you want because you think it is in the best interest of your client, regardless of what they think.
That's not a good idea, IMO. While the client doesn't have control over the tactical decisions, it's only going to cause issues for you woth the court or bar if you ignore your client.

Now like if the guy is insane, yeah, I'll file a competency motion even if he doesn't want me to (a situation I've had many times)

i guess i'm just trying to think of the upside to filing dogshit like this. is "my client made me do it" a good defense?
Nope. You're the professional. You're the one supposed to be in control.

suppose nick sues them for malpractice with whatever pennies he has left for failing to zealously or competently represent him, the lawyer can say, "but your honor, our client, a licensed attorney, approved of and condoned each and every one of our filings and approved of our legal strategy and we all, as a team, firmly believed it was in our client's best interest to pursue this approach." does that work?
No, nor should it work as an excuse.

Yes, he has a law degree, but you shouldn't rely upon your client's status or education to give you some sort of baseline competency to rely upon.

Part of your role as an advocate is to educate and make sure the Client understands the issues. Failure to that is asking for problems.
 
He didn't demand more tests because he fucking knew the results would be the same, and in his fucking pickled brain one test that he can whine and complain about is better than multiple tests that all say the same thing.

1. There were multiple tests performed.

2. If subsequent testing came back negative for cocaine, Nick would certainly have told us.

Ergo, the very safe bet is that Nick Rekieta’s eight year old child tested positive for cocaine multiple times.

It’s not complicated at all, despite Nick’s attempts to make it appear so.
 
Everything else I wrote talks about how bad Rekieta is as a client though. Which if you follow the logic, I'm trying to say they shouldn't be so hard on the lawyers. They're doing an impossible task.
People hate them because they represent scum like Rackets, for the money, knowing what they're doing in no way advances justice. Unfair maybe but that's how it looks.
 
Back