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

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

You joke but that's what he'll do. AAAAAAAAALL the way to the supreme court of earth.

The UNIVERSE! Your scope is too small.

This didn't even delay anything. Was this another $5K, $10K he might as well have just spent on cocaine? The appeals court didn't even issue a stay delaying the lower court case, and the state didn't even spend a dime or a minute of their time.

I know that you know, but for everyone else's edification, Nick's PARENTS are paying for this from their larger material resources.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

This didn't even delay anything. Was this another $5K, $10K he might as well have just spent on cocaine? The appeals court didn't even issue a stay delaying the lower court case, and the state didn't even spend a dime or a minute of their time.

They won by doing nothing while Balldo felted himself.

Your missing the rock-solid appealable error straight to The Hague. You have to prepare yourself though.

On Page 1. Above the fold.

The Appeals Court listed the parties.

State of Minnesota,
RESPONDENT

See the problem? The State never responded!!! The court even admitted the error in the ruling. Slam Dunk appeal on a malformed order. This was always a self-defeating retard wrestling match and by including the state, Rekieta was overmatched 2:1. The Barneswalker even had to bring on an appellate Balldowasher so the "Rekieta vs Rekieta" Tardmania 2024 would be a true legal match. The ICC Hague Scandinavian Prudes division must review this respondent error and restore this "Barnes v. Barnes - The Tard Wrangle" as a fair fight.

 

[Meat Target]

Nick's deadline is Tuesday, the same day Trump is supposed to be sentenced. Should Null batten down the hatches next week?

 

[Pedophobe]

Sequels usually disappoint and Nick himself seemed to have gone into this already defeated.

I don't think this second Denialocaust is going to get him to melt down anymore than he already has been.

Plus the KKK haven't given him permission to stream on this topic.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

Just a reminder that Kayla owes the court a filing regarding her probable cause challenge by 11/25 (Monday) from the omnibus. I'm betting she won't be asking for a Frank's hearing.

I think the most obvious challenge is the safe. Kayla could argue that the state found the coke in a safe (they said so) but has not established that the safe itself is a common area of the home and an area she controlled. I'm betting the issue Kayla's attorney asked the state for more information was on whether the safe was locked or any evidence of who had access to the safe. Nick didn't raise this obvious point. The state said they provided info related to "the issue" at the omnibus.

 

[MunsterCheeseJr]

IF Nick gets brought up on charges of illegal access to another computer and he gets let out on bail, I could easily see Nick getting restricted from using a computer as one of the conditions. That would be one of the biggest favors a judge could give Nick, even if he doesn't like it.

Maybe Nick watched Aaron enter his password, maybe Aaron was an idiot and allowed the browser to save his password, maybe Nick had a keylogger installed on his computer to keep track of his wife's online endeavors. I don't buy that Aaron's account stayed logged in for that many months without requiring a login again.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

I don't buy that Aaron's account stayed logged in for that many months without requiring a login again.

The longest I've have a google account stay logged in between sessions has been ~30 days. Any time over that, I've had to punch in the password anew, which usually required resetting the password.

Either the password got saved to the browser, or Nick repeatedly accessed the account to keep the session alive.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

I don't buy that Aaron's account stayed logged in for that many months without requiring a login again.

In the revenge porn case, the reports listed that April accessed Aaron's phone bill by logging in to his account. She used this access to verify the date/time of the text message to Geno.

Aaron's not the sharpest bulb in the knife shed. I would not be surprised if April had access to his password manager or had Aaron's accounts in her password manager.

 

[Lian Xing]

In the revenge porn case, the reports listed that April accessed Aaron's phone bill by logging in to his account. She used this access to verify the date/time of the text message to Geno.

Aaron's not the sharpest bulb in the knife shed. I would not be surprised if April had access to his password manager or had Aaron's accounts in her password manager.

>because of Aaron’s technical incompetence and Nick’s hubris, there are potentially federal wiretapping and unlawful computer accessing charges coming.
What a timeline.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I think the most obvious challenge is the safe. Kayla could argue that the state found the coke in a safe (they said so) but has not established that the safe itself is a common area of the home and an area she controlled. I'm betting the issue Kayla's attorney asked the state for more information was on whether the safe was locked or any evidence of who had access to the safe. Nick didn't raise this obvious point. The state said they provided info related to "the issue" at the omnibu

The counter is so extremely obvious that for her sake I hope she has something better. The coke was also found in their bedroom, near their nightstand, and in their dresser. And that's disregading the fact that the safes were in their bathroom and closet. That's at least two sources of cocaine she had direct access to, and at least two more that she had likely access to. In this stage of the proceedings she won't get this dismissed on those grounds. Whether or not she had access to the safe is a fact question, and therefore a question for the fact finder (i.e. a jury).

 

[AnOminous]

>because of Aaron’s technical incompetence and Nick’s hubris, there are potentially federal wiretapping and unlawful computer accessing charges coming.
What a timeline.

Leave it to Aaron to win somehow by being a total retard.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

The counter is so extremely obvious that for her sake I hope she has something better. The coke was also found in their bedroom, near their nightstand, and in their dresser. And that's disregading the fact that the safes were in their bathroom and closet. That's at least two sources of cocaine she had direct access to, and at least two more that she had likely access to. In this stage of the proceedings she won't get this dismissed on those grounds. Whether or not she had access to the safe is a fact question, and therefore a question for the fact finder (i.e. a jury).

Oh, she's not getting it dismissed. But it would be a win to get her amount knocked down to April's level. Unlike Nick, she didn't say anything about being in control of the master bedroom (Nick told cops he slept in the MB when he tried to protect April). I think for the hearing, they will be challenging the probable cause for charging her with the full amount. It's lower than the standard for conviction but if the judge rules there isn't PC to charge, it would be removed. I think they are going to argue that the safe is similar to a purse - with a much more narrow definition of access. Kayla doesn't have to say it's Nick's, just that the State hasn't tied it to her. At least that's what I'd argue.

Also, Nick didn't raise this and Judge explicitly said he couldn't raise anything more. Definitely a fact question at Nick's trial. lol.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Unlike Nick, she didn't say anything about being in control of the master bedroom (Nick told cops he slept in the MB when he tried to protect April). I think for the hearing, they will be challenging the probable cause for charging her with the full amount. It's lower than the standard for conviction but if the judge rules there isn't PC to charge, it would be removed. I think they are going to argue that the safe is similar to a purse - with a much more narrow definition of access. Kayla doesn't have to say it's Nick's, just that the State hasn't tied it to her. At least that's what I'd argue.

I just don't see that working. It'd be an argument worth considering if it was in some other room, but it was in the Master Bedroom and rooms connected to it (bathroom and a closet). And, of course, she must have control over the master bedroom because that's where she logically sleeps. There's clearly enough evidence to charge her with it, and whether those safe charges stick is an entirely different (trial) issue.

 

[Gehenna]

I just don't see that working. It'd be an argument worth considering if it was in some other room, but it was in the Master Bedroom and rooms connected to it (bathroom and a closet). And, of course, she must have control over the master bedroom because that's where she logically sleeps. There's clearly enough evidence to charge her with it, and whether those safe charges stick is an entirely different (trial) issue.

Just spitballing here, but what if she can argue that its a broken marriage and only Nick and April had frequent access to the master bedroom, with her sleeping somewhere else?

Still becomes a factfinding issue, but tis the only defense I could see her having that has some air of legitimacy.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Just spitballing here, but what if she can argue that its a broken marriage and only Nick and April had frequent access to the master bedroom, with her sleeping somewhere else?

Except that's not what Nick told the cops

 

[Thomas Talus]

Except that's not what Nick told the cops
View attachment 6677853

tbf it's not hard to impeach Rackets' credibility for truthfulness

 

[Useful_Mistake]

tbf it's not hard to impeach Rackets' credibility for truthfulness

"This step preserves the fact-finder's credibility findings and recognizes that the fact-finder is in a unique position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence before it. As the sole judge of credibility, the fact-finder is free to accept part and reject part of a witness' testimony." State v. Isaac, No. A23-0640 (Minn. Jul. 31, 2024)

That said, it's not only an off hand statement that Nick made. He later personally chose to testify while in custody that Kayla was sleeping in the same room as him


The prosecution would definitely bring this up.

 

[not william stenchever]

Because Nick deserves to be Bullied like the N-word he is.

"Nickers could be here, he thought"

Either the password got saved to the browser, or Nick repeatedly accessed the account to keep the session alive.

Considering Nick's compulsive behavior trying to own his ex-lover I doubt there was a day he didn't access Aaron's shit between the break-up and Aaron securing his shit.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Oh, she's not getting it dismissed. But it would be a win to get her amount knocked down to April's level. Unlike Nick, she didn't say anything about being in control of the master bedroom (Nick told cops he slept in the MB when he tried to protect April). I think for the hearing, they will be challenging the probable cause for charging her with the full amount. It's lower than the standard for conviction but if the judge rules there isn't PC to charge, it would be removed. I think they are going to argue that the safe is similar to a purse - with a much more narrow definition of access. Kayla doesn't have to say it's Nick's, just that the State hasn't tied it to her. At least that's what I'd argue.

Also, Nick didn't raise this and Judge explicitly said he couldn't raise anything more. Definitely a fact question at Nick's trial. lol.

It is their shared residence with their marital bed, coke on the stand next to it with April's card.
Both Nick and Kayla withdrew their consent for sharing their drug test results.

Both she and Nick completed out patient treatment to get their kids back.
The assumption is they both took coke, the house is shared, they both get charged.

The only way Kayla could get out of that charge is if Nick admitted to it being his and testified that Kayla did not know how much there was, that he alone had access to that safe and that he alone should be charged for the full amount.
And Nick will never do that. Kayla will hang with him.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

It is their shared residence with their marital bed, coke on the stand next to it with April's card.
Both Nick and Kayla withdrew their consent for sharing their drug test results.

Both she and Nick completed out patient treatment to get their kids back.
The assumption is they both took coke, the house is shared, they both get charged.

The only way Kayla could get out of that charge is if Nick admitted to it being his and testified that Kayla did not know how much there was, that he alone had access to that safe and that he alone should be charged for the full amount.
And Nick will never do that. Kayla will hang with him.

That's not how it works. The crime is controlling possession of drugs at the time and place of the warrant. Drug test results have no bearing on that. Whether they took coke or not isn't relevant to the charges. Drug testing was relevant to getting their kids back, but nothing criminal despite what Nick the Lawyer was trying to imply by revoking access.

Nick claiming the drugs were his does not absolve Kayla. Nor is he required to prove anything. The state has to prove that each of them had knowledge, access and control of the drugs.

There is a little bit of insight into what the state's plan is and it seems to be based on what each said to the cops. Nick and Kayla have different charges for child endangerment. Nick's charges (paraphased) are having drugs present with children. Kayla's charges (paraphrased) are allowing kids to be present knowing that another has drugs present. I think the difference is from Nicks post-Miranda statements. He admitted control by saying he slept in MB. Kayla said nothing. It's a subtle difference but state must have evidentiary reasons for different charges. It's not different in terms of penalty.