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

[Strix454]

Do we know a date for this supposed SWATing?

The motion is vague on the subject. Whoever wrote it tried to leave the implication (IMO) that the swating incident being discussed was something mentioned by Pomplun in one of the documents related to the search warrant. But the association of Pomplun to Swating incidents is deliberately textually separated from the accusation that Aaron "likely initiated" swatting incidents against Nick after falling out with Nick.

The whole way its structured smells of Nicks sort of gaslighting. The dumb judge is supposed to conclude that the police officer who did the warrant had firsthand knowledge that one of the police officer's key witnesses behind the warrant was engaged in a personal vendetta against Nick which included illegal acts. To me, its a deliberately misleading presentation that has Nick's signature style of obvious lying all over it.

And if anyone presses them on that point, its written such that they can say that they can say the never said that and that they were referring to some OTHER swating incident.

 

[Bepis]

It will be very funny to mock his future attempts to weasel out of him pleading guilty.
He will totally try to tell a dumb story for his locals paypigs, try to blame Aaron and end up with a TRO against himself because he is a deranged psycho.

I'm hoping he's dumb enough to pull a Baked Alaska and go live after accepting it talking about how he's innocent but had to accept it because "muh corrupt gubmint muh Pomplun muh judge pussy liquor"

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The hearing should have started by now

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

Is there any risk of everything being resurrected if he takes a plea deal but then runs around implying that he's innocent and has been coerced into entering an incorrect plea?

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

The hearing should have started by now

Is this a hearing open to the public company? If so, I hope one of you fuckers went to catch the seething in person.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Is there any risk of everything being resurrected if he takes a plea deal but then runs around implying that he's innocent and has been coerced into entering an incorrect plea?

Taking a plea means he cannot appeal.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Is this a hearing open to the public company?

I'm gonna go ahead and take a wild guess that nothing changed since the last time this was asked on the previous page.

 

[Lord Denning]

Is there any risk of everything being resurrected if he takes a plea deal but then runs around implying that he's innocent and has been coerced into entering an incorrect plea?

If he tells the judge that he was coerced into accepting a plea deal and maintains his innocence, the judge will refuse to accept it. But if the judge accepts the plea deal and the sentence is made the matter cannot be resurrected by the government regardless of what the Rekieta says because of double jeopardy.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

I'm gonna go ahead and take a wild guess that nothing changed since the last time this was asked on the previous page.

Well fuck, I may need my glasses checked.

Edit: How the fuck did I miss it, I read it and didn't retain a fucking ounce of what was read.

 

[AnOminous]

The whole way its structured smells of Nicks sort of gaslighting. The dumb judge is supposed to conclude that the police officer who did the warrant had firsthand knowledge that one of the police officer's key witnesses behind the warrant was engaged in a personal vendetta against Nick which included illegal acts.

Judges generally don't conclude things that a party hasn't even argued. Weird Nick-like gaslighting where you're supposed to "pick up social cues" and just do what Nick wants is not how legal arguments are won.

Kayla would have actually had to make that argument explicitly (which might have risen to the level of sanctionable), but didn't. Just dropping weird gaslighting hints isn't going to do shit. The judge will roll his eyes and ignore this irrelevant, scandalous bullshit.

Also another weakness in this filing is it didn't bring up the Franks argument again. Nick's absolute abysmal failure to argue that correctly didn't waive Kayla's rights to raise it, and while before the very same judge, it would almost certainly get the very same result, it would have preserved the issue for at least HER appeal.

Both lawyers really fell down on the job on this. Kayla's is less incompetent than Nick's (because Nick is presumably entirely in control of the Barneswalker), but both defendants should have argued both Franks and probable cause. Both of them completely omitted at least one essential argument.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Well fuck, I may need my glasses checked.

My jab aside; no it isn't open to the public.

 

[Strix454]

If the past is any indication, Nick will have a full breakdown after having to take the plea deal and flee immediately to the bottle....or whatever else he has.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

If the past is any indication, Nick will have a full breakdown after having to take the plea deal and flee immediately to the bottle....or whatever else he has.

He's gonna koolaid man through some more drywall

 

[Botchy Galoop]

He's gonna koolaid man through some more drywall

Nose first.

 

[AnOminous]

He's gonna koolaid man through some more drywall

Can a skelly even do that? Kool-Aid Man is a big guy (for you). Nick is just a weak skelly who would blow away in a light breeze.

 

[Polyboros2]

If he tells the judge that he was coerced into accepting a plea deal and maintains his innocence, the judge will refuse to accept it. But if the judge accepts the plea deal and the sentence is made the matter cannot be resurrected by the government regardless of what the Rekieta says because of double jeopardy.

I though there was a situation, and this may be retarded common law misconception, that if you plea guilty, and then publicly say you were lying about your guilt when you took the deal, the deal can be withdrawn and charges for back into effect.

Actually didn't that happen to Baked Alaska, he took a plea, went on stream staying he was innocent and just took the plea to get out of trouble, and got dragged back into court?

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

Can a skelly even do that? Kool-Aid Man is a big guy (for you). Nick is just a weak skelly who would blow away in a light breeze.

Nick is gonna SCP-096 his way through several mountain ranges, 2 innocent by standards, and at least 1 Cuck Porno on his way to the liquor store.

 

[Lord Denning]

I though there was a situation, and this may be retarded common law misconception, that if you plea guilty, and then publicly say you were lying about your guilt when you took the deal, the deal can be withdrawn and charges for back into effect.

Actually didn't that happen to Baked Alaska, he took a plea, went on stream staying he was innocent and just took the plea to get out of trouble, and got dragged back into court?

As far as I am aware, this cannot happen but I have to confess that I am not an expert in criminal law. As for the Baked Alaska situation, from what I remember he told the judge that he maintained his innocence but was going to accept the plea deal, but the judge rightly refused to accept the plea deal, because if you maintain that you are innocent of the charges laid against you, you are entitled to a trial. I don't believe Baked went on stream after the fact to state his innocence.

 

[ye's Official KF Burner]

We have boots on the ground for this one boys.

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

If he tells the judge that he was coerced into accepting a plea deal and maintains his innocence, the judge will refuse to accept it.

The same thing happened to Baked Alaska.