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

[Melty Butter]

I've gone back a few pages and did not see this discussed:

At a minimum, the Melton/Chrome issue seems like boldface witness tampering whether or not Nick had full access to Aaron's tech. The screenshot and Nick going on blast on social media to laugh about it seems like pretty clear threat; it takes two clicks to prove that Melton and Nick were in communication simply based on public streams.

By Aaron's account (and I believe him), the St. Cloud investigators are taking it pretty seriously.

My question: When does this come up for this case?????

More: In a separate criminal indictment? In pre-trial motions? Is anyone in Kandiyohi County paying attention? Has St. Cloud given them the heads-up? Even for a plea deal (possibly incoming next week) this seems Very Important.

Edit: Clarity

 

[AnOminous]

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.

I'm frankly not all that comfy with that somewhat spiteful seeming decision. I'm not convinced he actually fully waived that argument. I think it may be a closer call than it seems. He raised it on paper (and his Barneswalker did it in an inartful and lazy manner), did not raise it orally, but I cannot state with absolute certainty that this constituted a total waiver when the hearing was brief and abrupt and most of the argument was about other things like the Franks shit.

I'm not saying what Barneswalker did was remotely competent, just that I'm not certain it was just an outright waiver of a basic argument.

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.

I seriously doubt he could do that. When I was a kid, I actually could pick up passwords just by seeing people type them and actually remember them, too, and had a bit of fun with this ability. As my eyes have grown worse and my brain has grown dumber, I've totally lost that ability. I seriously doubt a retarded crackhead like Nick could do it ever.

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

Nick actually has the chutzpah to argue that any previous adverse admissions he made were lies, and in fact, he's a notorious and profligate liar so nothing he says can be trusted.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

I'm frankly not all that comfy with that somewhat spiteful seeming decision. I'm not convinced he actually fully waived that argument. I think it may be a closer call than it seems. He raised it on paper (and his Barneswalker did it in an inartful and lazy manner), did not raise it orally, but I cannot state with absolute certainty that this constituted a total waiver when the hearing was brief and abrupt and most of the argument was about other things like the Franks shit.

I thought the judge was just tired of his waste of time on the BS arguments. He's probaby heard of nick's disparagement of the other judge. Definitely heard him call everyone else on the case a liar. He's just tired of his BS.

What would be the redress of that decision? Post-conviction?

I don't really want to abuse the judicial process but it would be rather humorous if Kayla got some of the amount of cocaine dismissed on PC reasons while Nick eats the full amount having to wait until appeal to even address it. Another hilarity would Kayla getting the firearms or endangerment tossed because she said nothing to the cops while Nick the Lawyer said he slept in the master bedroom. Not saying it would right, just WEIRD and FUNNY to watch the non-practicing lawyer eat all the charges because he had to talk to the cops because he's smarter than them.

 

[Gehenna]

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

Nick is a profligate liar, and any such defense would require throwing him under the bus. While Prosecution can and would bring up those statements... I could still see it as not an awful defense. Especially in a Minnesota jury pool who very well could be made to view Kayla as he victim of Nick's actions.

Claim its a broken marriage, that Nick is lying to save public face, point to his insane defense of his own charges, play up some level of Battered Wife Syndrome (Either literally or just leaning into the "He gave me drugs, introduced me to it, and held the kids over me if I did not" and you have most of the way towards getting a jury to be sympathetic.

Of course this theorizing and spitballing is entirely predicated on her throwing Nick buswards. Which I don't think I have seen her doing. Still, its her best shot. Better than anything Nick has.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

My question: When does this come up for this case?????

The prosecution can bring this to the judge's attention at the next hearing, in which case the judge could sanction Nick and issue a gag order so that he may not talk about the witness or his family.

Everything else would be a separate investigation and criminal proceeding, likely including April (who admitted to logging into Aaron's phone account after the divorce), Nick who masterminded this "Operation", and Melton and any of his buddies who had access to whatever data was obtained, or who just participated in the harassment.

[EDIT] If they think it is important enough they could have filed something I guess, but since the next hearing is on the 26th its a bit pointless now.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

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.

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.

I have had some burner accounts signed in for going on over a year without using them. 3-4 months without opening them.

 

[AnOminous]

What would be the redress of that decision? Post-conviction?

Pretty much post-conviction though it would probably be wise at least to raise it again in some filing and try to argue it and object if it's shot down. It will probably piss off Wentzell but he should try to salvage this issue that up until now he has completely incompetently bungled.

It's rare to see a barely raised argument like this shot down as contemptuously as Wentzell did. You could almost read the implied "you goddamn fucking idiot" at the end of the sentence.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

I'm frankly not all that comfy with that somewhat spiteful seeming decision. I'm not convinced he actually fully waived that argument. I think it may be a closer call than it seems. He raised it on paper (and his Barneswalker did it in an inartful and lazy manner), did not raise it orally, but I cannot state with absolute certainty that this constituted a total waiver when the hearing was brief and abrupt and most of the argument was about other things like the Franks shit.

According to the MN Court Rules it is part of the Omnibus hearing, but since it was never raised the window to challenge should have passed.
Obviously they can challenge that by appealing, just as Nick could challenge everything about his case on appeal, but for that to happen he would have to get convicted first.

Rule 11.04 Omnibus Motions​

Subd. 1. Probable Cause Motions.​

(a) The court must determine whether probable cause exists to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it.
(b) The prosecutor and defendant may offer evidence at the probable cause hearing.
(c) The court may find probable cause based on the complaint or the entire record, including reliable hearsay. Evidence considered on the issue of probable cause is subject to the requirements of Rule 18.05 subd.1.

The first time I can see Probable Cause be raised in the documents is in the Franks reply, which is after the Omnibus hearing.
Was it talked about in another filing?

I imagine that "The court may find probable cause based on the complaint or the entire record[...]" might be doing some heavy lifting here.

 

[AnOminous]

The prosecution can bring this to the judge's attention at the next hearing, in which case the judge could sanction Nick and issue a gag order so that he may not talk about the witness or his family.

They might only do it if they're actually planning on using him as a witness. While I think there are some good reasons on it, their strategy might not involve anything he has to say. They might also think their case is so open-and-shut they don't want to distract from it with potentially confusing testimony on some byzantine Internet gayops.

According to the MN Court Rules it is part of the Omnibus hearing, but since it was never raised the window to challenge should have passed.

It got at least a passing mention in the filing and the hearing itself was pretty brief and perfunctory. I could see a (weak) argument he wasn't allowed time to make the argument in the rushed hearing. The thing is, I could easily see the appeals court upholding it even if it was in error, as a "harmless error," that is, he would have lost the argument and the case anyway.

Also, this is what Wentzell said:

Probable Cause Challenge
Defendant made a vague, passing reference to a probable cause challenge on page 8 of
Defendant’s reply memorandum filed September 6, 2024. This probable cause challenge is
untimely and was not properly noticed or raised at the hearing.

Essentially bringing up something new in a reply memorandum that should have been in an original filing is untimely. I love the sneering tone of "vague, passing reference."

We've noted here Kayla's presumably non-Barneswalking practicing lawyer did raise it properly and presumably will argue it at the omnibussy.

 

[TwinPeaksEnjoyer]

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

I guess the police proved that was his bedroom and coke next to the guns.

 

[Melty Butter]

Has anyone caught this? Putting this here bc I'm not sure where else it goes...
If Nick goes to court, he'll definitely be trying to push a law enforcement conspiracy theory.

We know Dan Sletta is pretty firmly NOT in Nick's camp.

In 2011 Dan Sletta was a defendant (along with MANY others) against a guy claiming abuse by the corrections system:


Link to case.
The details are very grisly. Anyway, it seems to link Sletta (loosely) to law enforcement. I can't figure out why he's even a named defendant but I haven't looked that hard.

Edit to Add: Shane Sletta is a corrections officer:

Link (Salary is $27K when you click through - I assume he's part-time.)

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

Has anyone caught this? Putting this here bc I'm not sure where else it goes...
If Nick goes to court, he'll definitely be trying to push a law enforcement conspiracy theory.

We know Dan Sletta is pretty firmly NOT in Nick's camp.

In 2011 Dan Sletta was a defendant (along with MANY others) against a guy claiming abuse by the corrections system:

View attachment 6682601
Link to case.
The details are very grisly. Anyway, it seems to link Sletta (loosely) to law enforcement. I can't figure out why he's even a named defendant but I haven't looked that hard.

Edit to Add: Shane Sletta is a corrections officer:
View attachment 6682659
Link (Salary is $27K when you click through - I assume he's part-time.)

Did I miss a couple of pages? Who the fuck are these people and how does this relate to Nick face painting his kids with coke?

 

[Melty Butter]

Did I miss a couple of pages? Who the fuck are these people and how does this relate to Nick face painting his kids with coke?

It doesn't relate to this case, specifically. It relates to Dan Sletta (Kayla's stepdad), or the Sletta's generally, having connections to law enforcement. I'm trying to predict what Nick will try to imply in his case if it goes to court:

POLICE CORRUPTION! MY IN LAWS HATE ME! etc.

It's not that important at this juncture.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Edit to Add: Shane Sletta is a corrections officer:
View attachment 6682659
Link (Salary is $27K when you click through - I assume he's part-time.)

AKSHUALLY he's full-time, nerd. Corrupt Kandiyohi County law enforcement persecutes Nick Rekieta because they need the money since they didn't choose a REAL career like livestreaming about sex and relationships.

 

[Terrifik]

36hour til plea deal deadline

 

[Father Balldo]

Did I miss a couple of pages? Who the fuck are these people and how does this relate to Nick face painting his kids with coke?

AFAIR Sletta is Our Wife's maiden name so that would make these people's Balldo's in-laws and kin.

 

[thebigdream]

36hour til plea deal deadline

I'm not sure what's more likely at this point, Balldo's plea deal or Bossman's Civic

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Did I miss a couple of pages? Who the fuck are these people and how does this relate to Nick face painting his kids with coke?

Some retard shitting up the Nick threads with irrelevant info nobody cares about to divert attention from the lolcow.

 

[Mike Stoklasas Spock Ears]

AFAIR Sletta is Our Wife's maiden name so that would make these people's Balldo's in-laws and kin.

Kayla’s maiden name is Woltjer. Her mother Sharilyn remarried, so Dan Sletta is her stepfather. @anionfarflung has some comprehensive research on Kayla’s family tree on their profile page if you’re interested.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Maggie Kluver lied, she said she would get the brief in before the 25th, now the 25th is halfway over in Minnesota and its still not up on MCRO.

I am really looking forward to reading what is hopefully a decently competent probably cause challenge of the search warrant, just to put it into contrast with Nick's garbage.

I also wonder if the delay with this brief stems from Nick trying to influence what they argue.