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.

[Grayback]

"heh heh, all of these strangers were staring at my wife and wanting to fuck her, isn't that cool?"

Covet not thy neighbor's covetousness.

 

[Captain Manning]

So is she like homeless living out of a car or something?

We don't know.

She was served at the Meeker County Sheriff's Office in Litchfield.

Wil Herren said she moved to another city, but some dismiss that as something he got from Nick, and therefore unreliable.

Also, it was pointed out that where she was served is just a 29 mile drive from Nick's house, so can't completely rule out the possibility she's still with Nick.

We just don't know.

 

[Strix454]

It's looking to me that when the prosecutor told the judge that it was imperative that Geno and Keanu testify, they weren't kidding. It's possible the Signal shit isn't as important as we were led to believe, and they can't build a case around it alone.

Other things could matter in the overall case, but without a person that can testify as a witness at trial as to if they received a nude photo of Kayla from Aaron that meets the criteria set in the minnesota revenge porn law, there is no case and no possibility of a conviction.

As far as I can tell, every single person in the case is likely to have difficulty at trial with inconsistant statements made over time about the case and the jury is going to end up having to figure out who they believe and who they don't believe.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Here’s a shocker: Nick lied again!

 

[Rick Nekieta]

We don't know.

She was served at the Meeker County Sheriff's Office in Litchfield.

Wil Herren said she moved to another city, but some dismiss that as something he got from Nick, and therefore unreliable.

Also, it was pointed out that where she was served is just a 29 mile drive from Nick's house, so can't completely rule out the possibility she's still with Nick.

We just don't know.

Has anyone checked out the most likely addresses of her parents or siblings? My guess is that she is being put up by family. If she has parents, siblings, cousins or aunts/uncles in Litchfield, the circimstantial evidence would suggest she is being put up by family.

 

[Vibralldo]

Here’s a shocker: Nick lied again!

"While we were doing drugs the kids would sometimes knock on the door, and people were under the influence of drugs around kids."

All 4 of them deserve to die imho

 

[John Andrews Stan]

All too predictably, the Aaron a-logs from Melton’s fanbase are out in full force in the comments there, as they always are in clip comments. This is just one of them. My only surprise is they didn’t drop a promo code in their comment.

 

[Captain Manning]

Has anyone checked out the most likely addresses of her parents or siblings?

Yes, and the 22622 615th Avenue address on her court paperwork does indeed comport with an Anderson family. However, given that she apparently arranged to be served at the Sheriff's Office, we don't have confirmation she's actually there.

@Balldo's Gate is adamant that Wil is just repeating whatever Nick told him, and @Folgers Can pointed out that they could have attempted to serve her there and her family called her to tell her. Whereupon she made arrangements to be served at the Sheriff's Office, and drove the 29 miles from Nick's place.

I kinda think she's there in Litchfield, and Occam's razor seems to suggest she's likely there in Litchfield, but I can see the argument for subterfuge as well.

All too predictably, the Aaron a-logs from Melton’s fanbase are out in full force in the comments there, as they always are in clip comments. This is just one of them. My only surprise is they didn’t drop a promo code in their comment.

Promo Code: NAMBLA.

 

[Third World Aristocrat]

Here’s a shocker: Nick lied again!

https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/tsx06CcScvo

edit: It seems Ghostarchive and Preservetube are having trouble with this one. Here is an archive of a similar clip from elissa clips:
https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/zA5-13Dn5TU

Transcription of the key part for those who can't bear to listen to Aaron.:

"Nick said that I had told the police that there were no drugs around his kids. Now that's not what I said. What I said was nobody physically, they asked me, was anyone doing drugs like next to the kids when the kids were like around? Were they physically, did they see people doing drugs? And I told the truth. I said not to my knowledge."
[...]
"But the drugs were in the house with five, sometimes eight kids in the house. That was, I mean, obviously that he was arrested that way. That's very clear."
[...]
"In fact, there were sometimes we're in that back bathroom and there would be a knock at the bedroom door. It would be one of the kids. I mean, so I mean, it was done in very close proximity and people were under the influence of drugs around children at some point or the other. I mean, myself included. "
[...]
"So yeah, him saying that, oh, there were never any drugs around the kids. Aaron even said that to the cops. No, I didn't. What I said to the cops was I didn't see anyone actually consuming drugs in front of children. It got awful and close sometimes. I mean, it was around the children. I just never saw it immediately available for them to get. The closest I ever saw was there would be a kid wrapping at the door and he would be in there, you know, doing his doing his stuff."

 

[Folgers Can]

Aaron arrest affidavit states picture was sent to group, per junkie/whore/six

It also does not say if THIS particular picture that is the topic in this trial was sent to Aaron via Signal, only "photographs".

Nick and April claim "pictures were shared via Signal app", but neither of them state the picture in question was shared via Signal App

I agree that the signal group is where the remaining Qover said the picture came from, and that's what is filed in the report.

In the police report, he says the image in question was shared by Kayla via Signal.

@Gobermental Supervisor is correct and I take it back about what the state initially alleged. For starters it's important to distinguish between the statement of probable cause in the state's complaint, which is just a summary of the state's own allegations, and "police reports" containing the throuple's actual statements to police up to that point. The latter would only have been disclosed confidentially to Aaron's attorney and AFAIK haven't been FOIA'd yet (if they even can be), so the throuple may have said much more about the photo's provenance than what the state selected to put in its complaint. The complaint itself harped on Signal so many times as to practically insinuate that the particular photo in question must have been sent that way, and everyone naturally read into it that assumption since so many mentions of Signal would seem like a non-sequitur if the photo had not been sent that way, but going through all six mentions the state doesn't flat-out say it was in so many words:



Coupling that with what Keanu's saying now leaves several possibilities that pre-complaint police reports could confirm:

1. One or more of the throuple witnesses deceptively flat-out told police that the photo was sent via Signal despite not knowing whether it was, and the prosecutor wrote up a first draft of the complaint stating that allegation, but after further investigation couldn't verify it, that allegation was removed from the final draft and all the other offhand mentions of Signal were just vestigial remnants that had become irrelevant.

2. The throuple witnesses all truthfully told police that they figured the photo was "probably" sent via Signal and they knew from discussions with Geanu that they couldn't confirm it, and the prosecutor expected search warrants to tech companies and/or forensic examination of Aaron's phone to eventually recover what the throuple said should "probably" be out there, so the prosecutor put all the seemingly irrelevant mentions of Signal into the complaint to set the stage for later investigation to "fill in the blank" as to what was going to make Signal relevant, only for later investigation to eventually find no such thing.

3. The prosecutor knew all along that the photo was a Steel Toe Original™ that never had anything to do with Signal, or at least expected that the photo in question was likely to never be traced back to Signal, and instead Signal was brought up for an independent purpose. One such purpose could be just to cite one illustrative example of the Qover's overall course of dealing with regard to lewds in general, to support a jury inference that they reasonably expected even non-Signal lewds to be treated the same way.

If #1 is the case then it could open the door to some cross-examination about non-disseminated Signal lewds on credibility grounds or otherwise wouldn't come up in the trial at all, and #2 certainly wouldn't come up in the trial at all, but #3 so squarely comes to blows with Aaron's "she a ho" defense that some limited discussion of Signal lewds might come up in trial but with no credibility issue to circumvent Rule 403 obstacles to Aaron's attorney doing much of a deep dive on the topic. Most likely they just stipulate to anything on Signal having been private and then battle about whether that proves much of anything about other categories of lewds, breaking down trial strategy more or less along these lines:



Which one is really going to be simpler for a mostly rural county's jury pool to understand?

Aaron should walk because it would make his ex boyfriend Nick angry.

All in due time but the only thing that makes Nick angrier and flail even more online is this shitshow being unnecessarily prolonged, so good on Aaron for that. At this point I'd pay anything to be a fly on the wall while Kayla throws her subpoena in Nick's face and slaps him for goading her into instigating this mess in the first place, and screams at him to "fix this" before her fragile mental state gets shattered on the stand contrary to Nick's big-brained lawyer promises that a quick plea deal would surely spare her that trauma. She only has him to blame for handing Aaron this chance to air out even more of their degeneracy in open court for all of her extended family and church to read in black and white, contrary to Nick's "heartfelt assurances" to her that they will live in quiet privacy once again.

Rising to the occasion upon Kayla's challenge to "fix this" at all costs, Nick would of course know no better than what we're already seeing: 1) litigate his own little RP mini-trial on Twitter and in YouTube chats for any random nobody who'll listen, and 2) unleash self-described "Rekieta's bulldog" Ralph into an epic invasion of the Dabbleverse to recruit a personal army for Aaron's career destruction, in hopes that those two things combined will accomplish... what exactly? Pressuring Aaron into taking a felony deferred adjudication deal that he clearly wants nothing to do with? Bold strategy Nick, let's see if that pays off. All Aaron has to do is kick up his heels and say "no deal" for Nick's seething to produce milk in perpetuity, and it's not like there's anything to be afraid of:

 

[Captain Manning]

Here’s a shocker: Nick lied again!

"While we were doing drugs the kids would sometimes knock on the door, and people were under the influence of drugs around kids."

All 4 of them deserve to die imho

There's a term for this.

It's where a story is more believable because it reflects negatively on the person telling it, and people are psychologically disinclined to tell lies that would do that.

I can't remember the term though. I've thought about it before within the context of Aaron, and it's driving me fucking nuts. Anyone know?

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

The Aaron revenge porn case has gotten really confusing to me given how the prosecution is acting. Now people are saying they don't even have the exact picture that was sent, just Aaron and Geno's word? When you add that, the fact victim's retarded junkie husband was very likely illegally reading Aaron's private communications with his lawyers, and the fact that Aaron blatantly doesn't meet the definition of a felony, this seems like Aaron would have a lot of leverage in negotiating a deal.

I assume a nice plea deal has been made, but Aaron didn't take it because if he admits guilt, then he is civilly liable for some vexatious bullshit Nick wants to file against him. What I worry for Aaron though is that his lawyer seems pretty shitty. If he got a decent female lawyer, then he'd be able to effortlessly win this trial AND humiliate his junkie ex-boyfriend and junkie's whore wife on the stand. But I guess when you're the DSP of shock jocks you can't really afford nice things.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

One thing that came up to me while taking a Steel Toe Morning Shit- another vector to try to get the picture in question (or at least a likely copy of it) would be the cloud. I think Aaron uses Android, so icloud is out, but a lot of android phones will back up to google photos (or secondarily to dropbox or any number of alternatives). That's not 100%, but if they did... they also should have requested access metadata that exist on the servers, in addition to the photo metadata. This also would assume that the photo was in a sync'd photo, signal's default folder I don't believe syncs the photos app by default.

Anyway, we don't know if they have the pic or not (from the carrier or via other means). But it's an even weaker case without it.

Also Nick is a retard, and with Nick being so sure that this is a win for the 'mo (ie the Spicer twink), this is another reason I would lean to this going Aaron's way.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

I'd rather explore the question if you can claim a picture to be private if it was shared in a group-chat.

They were all intimately involved. It wasn't a list-serve or anything publicly available. What you share with a lover is inherently private.

It's not a well-developed area of law, but here's what I posted previously:

On a reasonable expectation of privacy:

In State v. VanBuren, 2018 VT 95, 210 Vt. 293, 214 A.3d 791, the Vermont Supreme Court, in a case in which the current girlfriend of a man posted nudes to his Facebook of his ex, who had sent them to him (after their relationship, for whatever reason). The Vermont Supreme Court held the subject had no expectation of privacy - but specifically because she and the man were no longer involved when she sent the pic. As one article describes,

The court reasoned that the Complainant and Coon were not in a relationship when the photos were sent.85 The court does not give a
definition as to what a reasonable expectation of privacy is in this sense, but rather says that “[p]rivacy here clearly does not mean the exclusion of all others, but it does mean the exclusion of everyone but a trusted few.”86 In the court’s eyes, if you’re sending naked photos to someone they must be in the “trusted few” or else you compromise your expectation of privacy in them entirely.

That^ would suggest that even Vermont would find sharing a nude photo only with an intimate group ("a trusted few") would give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy of that photo.

Note: Vermont statute language at the time:

A person violates this section if he or she knowingly discloses a visual image of an
identifiable person who is nude or who is engaged in sexual conduct, without his or her consent, with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the person depicted, and the disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm.62

North Carolina has taken this view of a reasonable expectation of privacy and incorporated it into statutory law. In NC, the revenge porn statute (14-190.5A), reasonable expectation of privacy is defined in the language of the statute:

Reasonable expectation of privacy. – When a depicted person has consented to the disclosure of an image within the context of a personal relationship and the depicted person reasonably believes that the disclosure will not go beyond that relationship.

(emphasis added)

Again again, it's an undeveloped area, but looking around, it seems a solid position that if you know the subject, received a nude pic within a personal and limited group context, and don't ask for permission to share it, courts may find you had reason to know that there was not consent for dissemination of that image beyond the small personal group, and that the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy of the image they shared with you/the "trusted few."

Also, here's a news item from MN, back in 2017, with revenge porn convictions despite this:

When questioned by investigators, Weigel didn't deny posting the photos, but said they were already online, on a swingers' website, from when he and the woman were a couple, the complaint said.

 

[AnOminous]

It's where a story is more believable because it reflects negatively on the person telling it, and people are psychologically disinclined to tell lies that would do that.

Legally it's a hearsay exception called an "admission against interest," and the reasoning is someone wouldn't say something that incriminates them unless it was true.

 

[Meat Target]

Apropos of nothing, it'd be FUNNY and WEIRD and FUN if Nick switched from Galaxy Gas to helium.

 

[Captain Manning]

I think Aaron uses Android, so icloud is out, but a lot of android phones will back up to google photos (or secondarily to dropbox or any number of alternatives). That's not 100%, but if they did... they also should have requested access metadata that exist on the servers, in addition to the photo metadata. This also would assume that the photo was in a sync'd photo, signal's default folder I don't believe syncs the photos app by default.

I mean, if it did synch by default, wouldn't that be somewhat antithetical to one of the security features of Signal?

Then again, Null suggested these dumbasses didn't set the auto destruct feature on the app properly. Which suggests they weren't using it as intended in the first place.

Legally it's a hearsay exception called an "admission against interest," and the reasoning is someone wouldn't say something that incriminates them unless it was true.

Plugging that into Wikipedia, and scrolling down to "see also," I got "Criterion of Embarrassment" which is the term I was thinking of but couldn't remember.

Thank you!

It's a term used in biblical scholarship, and I recall first hearing about it in Bible studies, but I dunno why the concept couldn't apply outside of biblical scholarship. It's leverages logic equally applicable to secular topics.

Either term would work here though.

Basically, Aaron just told a story that makes Nick look like a piece of shit, while also making him seem like a piece of shit. And for the same reason. In doing so, there's an added layer of credibility to what he's saying.

Not that we really needed Aaron to do that, as I think most people assumed there was no way in shit, as Nick wants people to believe, that the only time anyone was doing drugs when the kids were physically gone from the premises.

Apropos of nothing, it'd be FUNNY and WEIRD and FUN if Nick switched from Galaxy Gas to helium.

He could also achieve the same effect from putting on the Balldo too tight.

EDIT: Clarification.

 

[Strix454]

Also, here's a news item from MN, back in 2017, with revenge porn convictions despite this:

The person in this particular case (Michael Weigel) made a plea deal, had two felony charges dropped and received a stayed sentence on the third that would drop from felony to misdemeanor after doing the other parts of the sentence. As far as I can tell, the case never went to trial and the privacy issues around the case were never litigated. The guy in question was a total mess for many other reasons and after sentencing was repeatedly brought back to court for probation violations. The person in question also made a statement to police that the photos were already on the internet, but I could not find anything to say if what he had asserted was found to be true or false.

I dont think the privacy issues have been litigated much in Minnesota, but I generally think it would be a bad defense to use in court and would only be used if nothing better were available.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Apropos of nothing, it'd be FUNNY and WEIRD and FUN if Nick switched from Galaxy Gas to helium.

He can't, that's prescription Galaxy Gas. In his current emaciated state he'll blow away in the wind if he doesn't ballast himself with heavier-than-air gases at all times.

 

[Pippa's Greasy KB]

, as Nick wants people to believe, that was only time anyone was doing drugs when the kids were physically gone from the premises

He was on coke on stream at 2am. Of course theyre in the premise. Or is he implying he sent them to the woods at midnight first?