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

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?


  • Total voters
    1,268
  • Poll closed .
I have a question about the plea. I seem to recall he had 26 grams in his possession. Why wasn't he charged with higher than 3rd degree felony possession? 26 grams is certainly significantly enough for personal supply and sales too.
I may be wrong but the amount the court went with here was under 25 grams, and third degree felony possession is possibly rated between 10 and 25 grams.
 
How hard is is for a lawyer to re-up on their license? Not that he's going to get back into being an actual lawyer anyways.
Per the Supreme Court of Minnesota order:
Screenshot_20250128_034750_Firefox.jpg

Let's pull up that rule, shall we?

Screenshot_20250128_034859_Firefox.jpg


So, he has to pay the fine, and ask the Director how many hours of learning he is missing. Once he does that, or if he's lucky - a promise might be enough, and the Director will send the Supreme Court of Minnesota a life-changing DM.

Doesn't sound that hard.

(Or he could whine to the boss. That might work too)
 
So Nick loses his law license for this, right? IIRC lawyers can't keep on practicing if they commit a felony.

In general, legal ethics boards are only concerned about the behaviour of lawyers if it relates to their professional conduct.

They would be concerned about whether an unrepentant cokehead could be trusted to represent a client. But a felony conviction is not prohibitive by itself.

My country considers general behavior and "moral integrity" a requirement to practice law. And there are still solicitors with previous convictions of rape or manslaughter.
 
I have experience dealing with CPS, and I hold them in utter disdain for how they operate. I have hope that it's not as prevalent in other places, but here the head of CPS legitimately only cares about how good it looks for them when they say "we had 100 cases this year, and through our "diligent hard work" we managed to rehabilitate 99 families so that they weren't torn apart".
States are required to have balanced budgets. Children in the foster care system are sunk costs for the state.

The head of your CPS would immediately get shit canned if large number of children were not immediately placed back with their families unless it was a life or death situation.

And kids generally want to go back to their parents. Getting passed around from one foster care family to another sucks ass.
 
[EDIT] Nick is taking the hit for the drugs in the safe. Which means Kayla could not be charged for them anyway.
View attachment 6911486
So what happened to his magic words non-claim that Aaron had planted the drugs in his house?

Faggot Rekieta honestly thought he was some kind of genius for suggesting such insanity.

Faggot Rekieta confesses.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nick bros...not like that...
I'm confused, isn't this the normal boiler plate language for plea deals? I've heard them numerous times, and I've heard when they go wrong. If you try to minimize your involvement or imply that something extraneous is happening, the judge or the state is likely to deny it. You basically have to say in no uncertain terms that you are guilty and should go fuck yourself before the state.

I mean, he's completely cucked by having to do this, but I'm not seeing anything out there with this transcript.
 
@Potentially Criminal Hey I enjoy your show!

I have a question about the plea. I seem to recall he had 26 grams in his possession. Why wasn't he charged with higher than 3rd degree felony possession? 26 grams is certainly significantly enough for personal supply and sales too.

I wasn't sure if he was being sly in front of the judge when he stated more than 10 grams by omitting the quantity.

They negotiated a deal, and a part of the deal was he would plead to 3rd degree (a lesser charge, which is common; 3rd degree also made him eligible for diversion, which 2nd doesn't). 3rd degree is, iirc, 10-25, so that's why he referenced more than 10. Stating an amount over 3rd degree amounts would not be necessary if the plea is 3rd degree.

No charge for sale was ever made, just possession.

How hard is is for a lawyer to re-up on their license? Not that he's going to get back into being an actual lawyer anyways.
Sorry if I'm double-posting, but:

Keeping a license current requires just under $300/year registration fees, and you must take 45 hours of CLE (Continuing Legal Education) in a 3-year period (the 3-year period is assigned based on year of admission). Nick is unauthorized/ not in good standing now bc he failed to report that he'd completed his required CLE for his current 3-year cycle.

To fix that, he'd need to show he has taken whatever missing cle hours, make the request, and pay the fees for reinstatement/ lateness/ whatever. Then there's a lag time for processing him off the "bad" roll, but it doesn't take too long. I see the language that @Useful_Mistake posted about allowing it on a promise, but that's rare and generally it's just easier to take the damn CLE. Especially when you don't actually have an active practice/job and time isn't critical.

In other words, wouldn't take much.

Per the Supreme Court of Minnesota order:
View attachment 6912163

Let's pull up that rule, shall we?

View attachment 6912164


So, he has to pay the fine, and ask the Director how many hours of learning he is missing. Once he does that, or if he's lucky - a promise might be enough, and the Director will send the Supreme Court of Minnesota a life-changing DM.

Doesn't sound that hard.

(Or he could whine to the boss. That might work too)
He will know how much he is missing bc the site shows what you've reported when you pull up your record. Many cle providers automatically report your hours to the state. If they don't, you just need to confirm with the provider everything you've taken, and then report it online (attested).

If you're more than 2 cycles behind the Director can just require you do the 90 hours (= 2 cycles). But if Nick wasn't deemed unauthorized prior to recently, then he's not more than 1 cycle behind.

And to be clear, this correspondence "with the Director" can be simply accomplished by emailing with the very helpful office staff and just doing what they tell you to do.

There's no need for a second assessment as he hasn't really undergone treatment at this point so he just has to sign a release of information.
I think they were asking about treatment. To that OP, the release is for his prior assessment to be used again as part of the pre-sentencing report. He had an assessment last year, did his minimum required outpatient "treatment" (which he mocked), and he's been saying that he now does not need to undergo any further treatment.
 
They negotiated a deal, and a part of the deal was he would plead to 3rd degree (a lesser charge, which is common; 3rd degree also made him eligible for diversion, which 2nd doesn't). 3rd degree is, iirc, 10-25, so that's why he referenced more than 10. Stating an amount over 3rd degree amounts would not be necessary if the plea is 3rd degree.

No charge for sale was ever made, just possession.
Beat me to it. This is a common way drug possession cases get resolved

I think they were asking about treatment. To that OP, the release is for his prior assessment to be used again as part of the pre-sentencibg report. He had an assessment last year, did his minimum required outpatient "treatment" (which he mocked), and he's been saying that he now does not need to undergo any further treatment.
I think they'll want both things, but that's why I said he hasn't undergone meaningful treatment. The court won't be fooled by half-assing some group programming
 
So what happened to his magic words non-claim that Aaron had planted the drugs in his house?

Faggot Rekieta honestly thought he was some kind of genius for suggesting such insanity.

View attachment 6912472
It is amazing just how full of shit the toughest of tough guys can be when someone with actual authority and power puts their boot down on their neck. All the bravado goes out the window and suddenly you see how desperate somebody is to avoid real conflict.
 
Back