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.

[not william stenchever]

The ultimate irony would be he doesn't go to jail for drugs, rather tax evasion.

He's going to deny that he fucked up instead of doing what the Ralphamale would: "I'M AL CAPONE, BISH. DA GUBBERMENT COULDN'T TAKE ME DOWN SO THEY HAD TO SEND THE TAX MAN."

 

[YazeePro]

This clip from February 2022 may explain Nick's thinking for taking the mortgage

...

I just want to say: Never take any advice from Nick Rekieta about any subject. Law, finance and relationship advice included

I think you are onto something here. The clip demonstrates that he clearly knew that borrowing against ones own assets is something rich people do to create more leverage for investments. I bet that he saw the money coming in at that time and thought to himself: that's something I can do as well! I am rich now.

Don't forget that Rekieta, at that time, would easily have qualified as accredited investor, which would have opened possibilities for him to invest in stuff not accessible to the general public (but way more risky). Accredited investors get their status because they are presumed to be more financially literate, which is true for some but not for all. Given Nick's ego, he might have completely overestimated his ability to identify good investments. So, he probably invested most of money in some bullshit scheme and then lost it all... And what he did't lose by investing he used for drugs.

 

[AnOminous]

He just never could have predicted how quickly his income would vanish and leave him with an empty bag and angry bankers on his doorstep.

He kind of could have, though. It was predictable to everyone else that if he just suddenly quit doing what made him money and instead took a giant steaming shit on his audience, it wasn't going to work out for him. People told him not to do that, and that it would end badly. Well, he ignored them, and it ended up even worse than people told him it would. What a dumb fucking spastic retard.

So, he probably invested most of money in some bullshit scheme and then lost it all... And what he did't lose by investing he used for drugs.

I think it's more likely he is just an utter cokehead and sent it all up his nose. Maybe he borrowed in the first place with some wild-eyed cocaine-fueled fantasy of investing it, but once he had it, it was just cocaine and Balldos 24/7 until it was all gone.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Guys, quick, look! Rekieta has done the unthinkable! He has finally taken responsibility for his actions, and apologized!

Nah, just kidding. He blames the Government (again) for his shitty 2024. Supporters only Locals post:

View attachment 6809370
View attachment 6809371

God, he's insufferable. And cannot proofread worth a damn.

Sounds like a suicide note bait

I don't know if this has been discussed yet but looking up Minnesota's CLE requirements are interesting.

Spoiler: CLE requirements

What is required for CLE Compliance?​

Minnesota-licensed lawyers on active status must report at least 45 continuing legal education (CLE) credit hours every three years.

Included in the 45 credit hours must be a minimum of 3 ethics or professional responsibility credit hours, a minimum of 2 elimination of bias credit hours, and a minimum of 1 mental health/substance use credit hour. Approved on-demand courses viewed and reported prior to Jan. 1, 2024, are subject to a 30-credit limit per 3-year reporting period. If the approved on-demand course was viewed and reported after January 1, 2024, and is to satisfy reporting requirements for reporting years 2024 and later, there is no credit cap.

Nick has to take 45 hours of classes to catch up on and he has to make sure some of them are a substance use and professional ethics class. I wonder how thats going to go with the drug charges and releasing Aaron's computer history?

CLE's been discussed many times. In MN, 45 hours every 3 years, of which 1 must be mental health (new req), a couple have to be ethics, and a couple must be elimination of bias. You can of course take more than the minimums, but overages don't carry over into the next reporting period. There are no longer any in-person attendance requirements, and most can be on-demand (replays), though some must be live broadcasts (unless that's now gone away as well). Attendance is verified throughout, and if you miss a prompt, you don't get credit for that segment of time. Some classes are just an hour, but can range up to multi-day conferences. Most employers of lawyers provide CLE or cover costs to attend, or provide memberships to national organizations like PLI, for attorneys*, but solos and those not covered can, with some effort, snatch the free ones that might come up through bar associations and the like. Otherwise the cheapest and easiest way to get the hours is by buying a pass to the main CLE provider, which I've mentioned before. A year pass ranges ranges depending on specifics, but it's under $2000. So you could buy it one year and take the full 45 hours in that year if you want. Pedagogically, not ideal, but it gets the requirements done.

*memberships with unlimited access like PLI are very valuable, bc their courses cost from as little as $150 for a single hour to do with pro bono matters to upwards of $2000 for a 2-day conference. In the old days everything had to be in-person, so for some of these, which, being national, are commonly held in New York or SF or similar, it was not just the cost of the course, but also hotel and air, per diem, etc. For a small firm/company or solo, that was a very expensive proposition, and very inconvenient/time-consuming. Today, no excuse.

But Nick's criminal affairs have nothing to do with attending CLE. They're just classes. They don't check your record to let you log into a webinar.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Some of what Nick is saying here is true, but I think what he isn't saying is most interesting.

The novel idea of... borrowing money to invest... isn't actually new, or only available to rich people. It can also work, so you know Crackets got something right.

The problem with what he is saying is that he is portraying what he is talking about as almost risk free, as if it's just some sort of multiplicative infinite money glitch you unlock once you are rich enough.

If something mundane is repackaged and presented as exciting, exclusive or different, and inherent risks or drawbacks are downplayed or ignored... I instantly think someone is trying to sell me something. Is Nick repeating the sales pitch that hooked him into doing this?

Maybe the explanation is as simple as Nick being bamboozled by some snake-oil salesman.

Just from looking at the idea there were so many better ways to do it using Nick's own assets. He had the second house, free and clear, bringing in rental income. You borrow against that house at a low interest rate. Invest it into higher return funds. And the mortgage is covered by rent income. And worst case if it all goes tit's up is you lose the extra house. This would have been an extremely safe almost guaranteed good return investment scheme. But it required a few ground rules.

1. Cocaine is not an investment
2. You need to keep the rental income. No free home for fleshlights.
3. Pay the fucking taxes.
4. Tacky art of comic book characters are not long term investments.
5. Don't quit your day job.

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

I think you are onto something here. The clip demonstrates that he clearly knew that borrowing against ones own assets is something rich people do to create more leverage for investments. I bet that he saw the money coming in at that time and thought to himself: that's something I can do as well! I am rich now.

Don't forget that Rekieta, at that time, would easily have qualified as accredited investor, which would have opened possibilities for him to invest in stuff not accessible to the general public (but way more risky). Accredited investors get their status because they are presumed to be more financially literate, which is true for some but not for all. Given Nick's ego, he might have completely overestimated his ability to identify good investments. So, he probably invested most of money in some bullshit scheme and then lost it all... And what he did't lose by investing he used for drugs.

I'd guess he planned to invest it and then invested it on vacations, cars, strippers, mommy ops and Peruvian marching powder.

 

[Taco Conspiracy]

Guys, quick, look! Rekieta has done the unthinkable! He has finally taken responsibility for his actions, and apologized!

Nah, just kidding. He blames the Government (again) for his shitty 2024. Supporters only Locals post:

View attachment 6809370
View attachment 6809371

Does he mean 14 Locals shows in February??? He must mean that because I know he's not gonna give his audience any money. Wait...Nick, just regift the knife set you were supposed to auction off for Vic. That can be the 5k lolcows grift.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

I think you are onto something here. The clip demonstrates that he clearly knew that borrowing against ones own assets is something rich people do to create more leverage for investments. I bet that he saw the money coming in at that time and thought to himself: that's something I can do as well! I am rich now.

Don't forget that Rekieta, at that time, would easily have qualified as accredited investor, which would have opened possibilities for him to invest in stuff not accessible to the general public (but way more risky). Accredited investors get their status because they are presumed to be more financially literate, which is true for some but not for all. Given Nick's ego, he might have completely overestimated his ability to identify good investments. So, he probably invested most of money in some bullshit scheme and then lost it all... And what he did't lose by investing he used for drugs.

This is a possibility. As I mentioned yesterday, the mortgage holder on his home is an investment advisory firm.

And I will bet TEN MILLION DOLLARS that Nick is terrible with numbers. Sometimes you just know.

Some of what Nick is saying here is true, but I think what he isn't saying is most interesting.

The novel idea of... borrowing money to invest... isn't actually new, or only available to rich people. It can also work, so you know Crackets got something right.

The problem with what he is saying is that he is portraying what he is talking about as almost risk free, as if it's just some sort of multiplicative infinite money glitch you unlock once you are rich enough.

If something mundane is repackaged and presented as exciting, exclusive or different, and inherent risks or drawbacks are downplayed or ignored... I instantly think someone is trying to sell me something. Is Nick repeating the sales pitch that hooked him into doing this?

Maybe the explanation is as simple as Nick being bamboozled by some snake-oil salesman.

Could be that, or he's just absolutely dumb.

Can't wait till Nick starts shilling Healys and LulaRoe (MLMs) on stream!

 

[Sam Losco's Wife]

Alright what shitcoin did he dump his money in

Now listen up Aaron, I think the universe is trying to tell me something. It's what we've been practicing for the whole time.

 

[AnOminous]

God, he's insufferable. And cannot proofread worth a damn.

I especially like the tween girl tumblr crytyping. "I. . .I. . ." shut the fuck up homo.

 

[ShitLurker]

Was it worth it, Nick?

Yes

 

[RandyMiskatonic]

I can't believe that the whitest man in this sektor is a black man who enjoys his comics.

Black Weebs are a primary source of hilarious things.

 

[Strix454]

That's not Rekieta. He'd borrow the money, invest it in cocaine and then consume all the cocaine, all the while convincing himself he was earning a fortune.

Years ago, there was a guy named Adam Jasinski who won the reality show "Big Brother" and then invested all the money from winning the show into a sock full of oxycodone pills. He was slinging them on the street until the feds caught up with him. He got a few years in prison for it. They also got him for tax evasion.

I could totally see Nick selling crack out of a sock in front of the courthouse in Willmar MN.

 

[ye's Official KF Burner]

Cocaine is not an investment

It is if you're investing in lolcows, but Nick doesn't realize he is the lolcow which means his cocaine investment is like pissing in the wind.

 

[Rick Nekieta]

1. Cocaine is not an investment

1. Buy coke at market rates
2. Sell to Rackets
3. Profit

 

[AnOminous]

And I will bet TEN MILLION DOLLARS that Nick is terrible with numbers. Sometimes you just know.

We do just know. Remember, this is Mr. 109 degree fever. He's repeatedly shown his absolute ignorance of numbers. He's numerically illiterate even by lawyer standards.

 

[Rick Nekieta]

Remember, this is Mr. 109 degree fever

This is the first time I'm learning of this one.....

 

[Melty Butter]

Most importantly, he says "subject" when he means "object".

@daffodils beat me to it but he means a subject to a monarch. It's a favorite metaphor for Nick, positively or (more often) negatively.

Home schooling is a scam and they would be much better off not being taught by the pill fiend.

I do not understand why the home schooling aspect and the teacher (Kayla) being a drug and pill addict has not been a bigger topic for CPS.

YES. I'm surprised it hasn't been more mocked on this thread. Sure, it's a case of bad options. Few would go to bat for America's public education system. (Though, notably, MN's schools are solidly ranked, as are Willmar's schools.)

Point is, the homeschool subculture (growing by the day) of radicalized libertarians, Groyper-paranoids, MAGA stupids, homeopath-deluded, Jesus-obsessed freaks who literally state shop for the lowest possible regulations (like, say, literacy for the parent-teacher) is hilarious. Willmar is solidly red. I'm willing to bet no purple-haired troons are pushing the 1619 Project.

He signalled to claim all kinds of deductions for 'the show' like part of his cuckmobike because he streamed from it, among other things.

An audit would be problematic. When I drew up my rough budget, I didn't know what to do with the Mustang and art because he said he would write them off by featuring them in his streams.

On a separate note. I've been very slowly going through highlights to get up to date, but I saw all of the disgusting interactions between Nick and April in X. But didn't see anything from Kayla.

It's bizarre that he's simply ignoring it! A mere 2 months ago Nick and April were drug-sexting publicly. Nick called into a show and discussed April's VAGINA.

I presume April jokes belong here?

They are welcome and encouraged. By me, anyway.

Teen girl drama.

The way he actually typed and posted "I, I even lost myself" gives me maximum douche chills.

Theoretically, a liberal arts education (nevermind a full life on the Internet) in which one's thoughts are communicated with the written word, necessitates the ability to judge oneself as other's might (a professor, the forum, a subreddit, Xitter - whatever).

So, Nick, some suggestions with the help of GBT in a professor's voice:

Spoiler: I laughed

At the risk of being blunt, your post presents a rather one-dimensional view of your situation, as if your experiences exist in a vacuum where no action on your part could possibly have contributed to the outcome. Life is rarely so clear-cut. While there’s no doubt that external forces can impact us, the constant refrain of “woe is me” makes it seem as though you’re wholly powerless in the face of adversity, which is not only inaccurate but potentially self-defeating. You are not simply a passive recipient of whatever life throws at you; you are an active participant. The failure to recognize this robs your narrative of any real depth or substance.

Moreover, I find it concerning that your post skirts around any meaningful analysis of how you might have been complicit in, or at least contributed to, the very circumstances you condemn. There is no reflection on your own role in these situations, no exploration of what you might have done differently, or what you might do now to alter the course of events. Instead, you opt for a victim-centered narrative that allows you to sidestep personal accountability. This isn’t just an oversight; it’s a missed opportunity for growth and insight.

What is most troubling, however, is the apparent disregard for the reader’s perspective. By focusing so heavily on how you’ve been wronged, you risk alienating anyone who might want to understand your experience on a deeper level. People are less likely to empathize with someone who paints themselves as helpless and perpetually victimized. It’s not inspiring; it’s exhausting. This post doesn’t invite conversation or dialogue—it just demands sympathy. If you are truly looking for any kind of meaningful change, you’ll need to step away from this “victim” mentality and engage with the real complexities of your situation.

Additionally, the language of blame throughout the post feels superficial and, frankly, tedious. Simply pointing fingers at external forces or other people does nothing to illuminate the causes of your struggles or offer any constructive commentary. Instead of placing all the responsibility on others, I would challenge you to take a hard look at the choices you’ve made and how those choices have shaped your reality. A little introspection would go a long way in transforming this from a complaint into a thoughtful examination of your life and circumstances.

To be blunt: you can’t keep writing posts that revolve around a simplistic “me against the world” mentality if you expect anyone to take you seriously. Your readers, who may initially feel sympathy, will quickly grow disillusioned if all you offer is a pity party. I would strongly advise you to reconsider the narrative you’ve constructed here. Stop playing the victim card and start thinking critically about your agency, your choices, and how you can begin to take control of the narrative you’ve built around yourself.

In conclusion, while I don’t dismiss the hardships you’ve faced, I do believe you are shortchanging both yourself and your audience by refusing to engage with the complexity of those experiences. A shift from victimhood to agency is not just a suggestion—it’s a necessary evolution if you want your writing to have any real impact.

 

[ShitLurker]

It's bizarre that he's simply ignoring it! A mere 2 months ago Nick and April were drug-sexting publicly. Nick called into a show and discussed April's VAGINA.

Nick lying like he breathes doesn't surprise me anymore. I'm just more wondering if Kayla says nothing due to how hard she got cucked or because she has a real lawyer telling her to keep away. I'm a tourist for the most part here, so am just curious about her side.

 

[St. Alia of the Knife]

Was it worth it, Nick?

A few weeks ago he was still describing the drug experience as "fun," so I am going to go with the notion he devoutly believes he did nothing wrong and it was all worth it. He just didn't like the consequences of being caught out. But I bet if he never had been arrested he would still be doing his coke and pill streams without a care in the world.