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.

[Nova902]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjI2ItC63mg Nick talks about Nicks addictions but he is not an addict.

 

[Folgers Can]

Aaron confirms he's hired a private investigator and that's what he was referring to about the "investigator's report"

One really has to feel sorry for whatever poor boomer PI now has to slog through all 7,568 pages of this thread just to catch up on all the free work that's already been done:

 

[not william stenchever]

One really has to feel sorry for whatever poor boomer PI now has to slog through all 7,568 pages of this thread just to catch up on all the free work that's already been done:

I welcome this unfortunate soul to come and sneed with us.

 

[Oxyjen]

One really has to feel sorry for whatever poor boomer PI now has to slog through all 7,568 pages of this thread just to catch up on all the free work that's already been done:


View attachment 6747362

Outstanding! I look forward to seeing this again on Meme Copium.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Doesn't jury decide on the facts of the case? That is do they believe police that there was cocaine present and that lab tested it to be such.

Search warrant is up to the judge. Not to the jury. As such they don't need any testimonies apart from the police doing the search and lab tech doing testing. Police to tell yes white powder was in the house at the time. And lab tech to tell yes it is coke.

Testimony regarding the warrant might have been required if there had been a Franks hearing and the reliability of the witnesses and reporters was questioned.
Just because they are not needed to defend the warrant in court in front of a jury does not mean there was no possibility of testimony regarding the reporting ever becoming relevant.

Since Aaron's video and statements regarding drug consumption and "experimenting" together with the other polycule members were some of the things the investigator watched and are mentioned in filings, all those things could have been questioned if a Franks hearing had taken place. Painting Aaron as the mad obsessed ex lover who is harassing his former gay boyfriend, the pilled out fucktoy and the now ex-wife cokefiend would have been a legit way to discredit him as a witness (and the RP case is hitting into that notch as well) and use that to challenge the search warrant.

"Your honor, the wifebeater who is currently on probation, physically abused all of us and when we kicked him out he went raging mad. He must have planted that cocaine when he was last here to pick up his stuff, he might have seen me enter the safe code in the past! He created this entire situation, first planting the cocaine, circulating the child neglect/endangerment lies in our church, and then tipping off the police so the house was searched. It was all a set-up!"

And depending how well you can accompany that narrative with incidents, pictures, videos, text messages or clips of Aaron's shows, it is entirely possible to make him out as a very unlikeable asshole who mistreats women and is settling a score. Without the Coke stream Nick would actually have had a pretty good chance to get away with it too, but the video is actual visible proof anyone can look at and come to the reasonable conclusion they are watching an impaired individual who has drug residue on his nose.

One really has to feel sorry for whatever poor boomer PI now has to slog through all 7,568 pages of this thread just to catch up on all the free work that's already been done:


View attachment 6747362

That was very enjoyable. Thank you!

 

[IamnottheNSA]

He's a geek. But not the useful kind

Stealthy geek?

 

[Desktop User2]

Since Aaron's video and statements regarding drug consumption and "experimenting" together with the other polycule members were some of the things the investigator watched and are mentioned in filings, all those things could have been questioned if a Franks hearing had taken place

For what I understood, a Franks hearing is to determinate if the cop willingly lied in a material way to obtain the warrant, I dont see how Aaron would be relevant in that case or if they even enroll witnesses on those hearings... also, the time to challenge the warrant is during the pre-trial phase so, again, I dont see how Aaron´s testimony in court would be relevant regarding specifically the warrant.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

He's not suspended. MN lets you check DL status if you have the number. His DL number is on the citation.

So he is really just lazy? That would track... I recall him saying that his wife hated driving, so now she is forced to do it?

For what I understood, a Franks hearing is to determinate if the cop willingly lied in a material way to obtain the warrant, I dont see how Aaron would be relevant in that case or if they even enroll witnesses on those hearings... also, the time to challenge the warrant is during the pre-trial phase so, again, I dont see how Aaron´s testimony in court would be relevant regarding specifically the warrant.

Yes, Franks dictates that they have to massively misrepresent or lie, and the standard for warrants is biased in favour of issue when the issue is doubtful in Nick's district, at least.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

So he is really just lazy? That would track... I recall him saying that his wife hated driving, so now she is forced to do it?

My guess is Kayla threw down the pawverbs law after she got admonished for being late at her omnibus hearing. If memory serves, Nick drove to that. We also have rumors that Nick (or more) were late for a drug test. Kayla may not be much, but given her personal accounts on stream and info from Aaron, she will reach a breaking point. I would guess "timeliness” (or perhaps previous tardiness) is now one of the things that awoke the sleeping giant.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

For what I understood, a Franks hearing is to determinate if the cop willingly lied in a material way to obtain the warrant, I dont see how Aaron would be relevant in that case or if they even enroll witnesses on those hearings... also, the time to challenge the warrant is during the pre-trial phase so, again, I dont see how Aaron´s testimony in court would be relevant regarding specifically the warrant.

If the officer relied on an unreliable witness and/or misrepresented that, how else would you find out about other than a court subpoena for the witnesses to be questioned about it by the defense to establish the misconduct or demonstrate the warrant was based on a malicious lie?

It is entirely possible the officer did not know any better and was lied to by the person reporting or the witness. You can't discuss the credibility or truthfulness of the officer without first establishing if the sources were being truthful.
It all ties into each other.

There is of course also the problem of neither Nick or his retard lawyer being able to properly express the actual issues and write a reasonable narrative that puts the search warrant in question. But Aaron was still a witness and Nick fucking with him is still witness tampering.

In all honesty, I think half the people active in this thread would be able to write a better Franks challenge than Nick managed.

 

[JustStopDude]

One really has to feel sorry for whatever poor boomer PI now has to slog through all 7,568 pages of this thread just to catch up on all the free work that's already been

Don't. PI's have a better hourly rate than the typical attorney. Aaron is getting fleeced just to learn what he already knows.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

If the officer relied on an unreliable witness and/or misrepresented that, how else would you find out about other than a court subpoena for the witnesses to be questioned about it by the defense to establish the misconduct or demonstrate the warrant was based on a malicious lie?

It is entirely possible the officer did not know any better and was lied to by the person reporting or the witness. You can't discuss the credibility or truthfulness of the officer without first establishing if the sources were being truthful.
It all ties into each other.

There is of course also the problem of neither Nick or his retard lawyer being able to properly express the actual issues and write a reasonable narrative that puts the search warrant in question. But Aaron was still a witness and Nick fucking with him is still witness tampering.

In all honesty, I think half the people active in this thread would be able to write a better Franks challenge than Nick managed.

I don’t think “probable cause” is that high of a bar, in all reality.

Like, probable cause can’t be retroactively invalidated by Aaron’s credibility. He said thing, cop had probable cause, warrant is valid

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

I don’t think “probable cause” is that high of a bar, in all reality.

Like, probable cause can’t be retroactively invalidated by Aaron’s credibility. He said thing, cop had probable cause, warrant is valid

It would throw a wrench into things if Nick wasn't so incompetent and had managed to supplement his Frank's motion with some actual evidence.
All it really would have taken is some text messages that can be interpreted as harassment or threats and establishing in some way that Aaron is having a real beef with Nick and April.

That would have made Aaron a very unreliable "concerned citizen", which Nick and his lawyer tried to challenge, but they failed because they are too dumb to even present a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
If Aaron has first hand knowledge of the drugs in the house, and he stayed there in the not so distant past, and he did drugs with them, then it is reasonable to conclude that he also might have possessed drugs at some point in time, while he was at that house. Could some of the drugs found be his? Should the investigator have figured out all those things? Did they actually do a proper investigation????

Aaron was in fact snitching on his ex-wife and the new boyfriend. If the entire circumstances had been presented properly without the moronic attempts to dance around the facts of the case a) drugs were there and b) yes they were in a polcyule swinger relationship. But Nick tried his best to get the best of both worlds. Try to paint Aaron as the bad guy without admitting to the moral degeneracy.

[EDIT] Even if it was still denied, it would have at least made for a better challenge than whatever that was they filed instead. I bet I could write a better Franks challenge in 30 minutes than they actually filed.

 

[Desktop User2]

If the officer relied on an unreliable witness and/or misrepresented that, how else would you find out about other than a court subpoena for the witnesses to be questioned about it by the defense to establish the misconduct or demonstrate the warrant was based on a malicious lie?

The officer used a video of Aaron to ask for the warrant, the only thing the judge would review is the same video to see if he misrepresented it.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Nick won't go back to streaming, especially about the law. It was never a law channel! Plus, Nick is obviously a professional comedian now. All his guest spots of late have been on "comedy" shows. (If you consider Juju or Melton comedy.) Nick is trying to clear his name up so he can get back on the comedy circuit, or better yet, the Dabbleverse! That's clearly where all the money is.

Apologies for the self quote, but this is something I just caught listening to meme copium's replay of the balldo appearance on TDS (not noted elsewhere). Nick says he wants to get back (to streaming) to have interesting conversations with people. He says nothing about the law. But elsewhere in this appearance, he mentioned about (summarizing) how the extra lawyers on trial streams were only there for him to have to do less work.

But really, outside some bottom feeders in the dabbleverse (redundant), who would want to have Nick on with them or worse, go on his rotting corpse of a show? Who, after listening to Nick's drunken guest appearances on such wonders as NLO or TDS, would think, "Oh ya, this smooth-brained retard will definitely be worth showing up for on stream"? Even if Nick was previously a great interviewer (he wasn't, and that's even before the Rittenhouse interview), his name is still garbage now and will be moving forward. Hate views can go for a while, but inevitably people will watch something else, either clippers or content they're actually interested in, instead of a drunk rambling about whippets or balls.

 

[Windy Moors]

Wonder what April will buy Nick for his birthday, with his money.

But really, outside some bottom feeders in the dabbleverse (redundant), who would want to have Nick on with them or worse, go on his rotting corpse of a show?

There is a certain someone who can be relied upon, the man with the shinest broom and no principles: Grifty!

 

[Desktop User2]

I don’t think “probable cause” is that high of a bar, in all reality.

Like, probable cause can’t be retroactively invalidated by Aaron’s credibility. He said thing, cop had probable cause, warrant is valid

If the cops didnt found anything, I would 100% supported Nick fighting the gov over this violence of the privacy of his home but retarded niggers like him that feed drug to their kids fuck the notion of a high trusting society and justify state overzealousness because they are unhinged niggers.
People like Nick are cancers to freedom.

 

[Lian Xing]

Could some of the drugs found be his?

Aaron being at the house in the past is irrelevant to the charge. Nick and Kayla's house; their drugs. It's the same way how the mere presence of the drugs at the house with the children is enough for the child endangerment. Also, if they were Aaron's drugs, and he was gone, why were the drugs still present? Aaron stating there were drugs and Nick's behavior on the coke stream are plenty for a warrant, even if Aaron had less than ideal motives.

 

[Canard]

Question one should ask. What would you do if your swinger friends or not swinger friends left some illegal drugs in your bed room? Just keep them? Flush them down the toilet? Destroy them some other way? Report police? Or just leave them around. With some credit cards on silver platter...

Yeah, no keeping drugs around, in house with children if you are not a user is just not something people do.

 

[REGENDarySumanai]

As I graduate from college today, I would like to thank Nick Rekieta for the many months of entertainment he has given me by self-immolation.