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.

[Vibralldo]

An hour-ish ago:

View attachment 7036134

First of all, gross. Nick sounds like he's into Geno being excited by looking at Kayla. (I don't recall that, btw. I remember him laughing.)

Second, a ridiculous threat of a civil suit against Geno.

Context:
View attachment 7036147

There are so many tweets that it's worth some bulk archiving. I'll try to do it in the AM.

It's funny and weird that he used to complain about how litigious Monty was and now he's threatening to sue everyone that moves
Poetic, a true lolcow

 

[Captain Manning]

How about if you picked up April at a Denny's, would she be a Grand Slampig? (I couldn't find anything close to a chip so pretend it's a spicy nacho dorito)

Oh shit! You just made me realize...

April was born in 1994.



Next time Nick does this, he needs to involve a female born before 1993. That way the kids won't go hungry at least.

 

[Folgers Can]

The thing about "wrongdoing" is that it itself has to be proved in court. I think you would have to convict Aaron of Witness tampering (or at least get a finding to that effect) in order to invoke the rule

This also requires a lot more than just some retard on the internet saying "wouldn't it be great if these people who are scheduled to testify against me would not show up??".

Unless Aaron paid them or told them "do not show up OR ELSE!", Nick can go shove a Balldo up his ass and spin.

Unfortunately for Aaron, Minnesota's treatment of that doctrine is disturbingly broad, first off because the state doesn't even need to prove the forfeiture by wrongdoing elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and instead has the luxury of the preponderance of the evidence (i.e. 51%) burden of proof used in civil cases:

The state's burden of proof on forfeiture is a preponderance of the evidence. See Davis/Hammon, 126 S.Ct. at 2280 ("[F]ederal courts using Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), which codifies the forfeiture doctrine, have generally held the Government to the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, * * *. tate courts tend to follow the same practice * * *." (citations omitted)). See also United States v. Balano, 618 F.2d 624, 629 (10th Cir. 1979)...

State v. Wright (Wright III), 726 N.W.2d 464, 479 n. 7 (Minn. 2007).

Secondly and even worse, the state doesn't need to find direct evidence like some smoking-gun email showing threats or some wire transfer showing a bribe, and instead the judge can rely on a smattering of circumstantial evidence to engage in speculation about whether attempts to pressure a witness were what probably caused the witness' absence that could have just as easily been caused by a flat tire:

Shaka contends that there is no direct evidence that his conduct procured S.S.’s unavailability. He is correct. But the state argues that the district court was permitted to draw inferences from the evidence to determine whether Shaka caused S.S.’s unavailability. To resolve the issue raised by the parties, we first consider the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence and then analyze caselaw from other jurisdictions. The supreme court has defined direct evidence as "evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption." Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (citation omitted). Circumstantial evidence is defined as "evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation" and "all evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony." Id. (citation omitted). The supreme court has concluded that "[c]ircumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence." Id. at 477.

In State v. Maestas, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that causation in the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception "need not be established by direct evidence or testimony" because "rarely will a witness who has been persuaded not to testify regarding an underlying crime come forward to testify about the persuasion." 412 P.3d 79, 90-91 (N.M. 2018 ); see also State v. Weathers, 219 N.C.App. 522, 724 S.E.2d 114, 117 (2012), ("It would be nonsensical to require that a witness testify against a defendant in order to establish that the defendant has intimidated the witness into not testifying.")
Likewise, in United States v. Scott, the Seventh Circuit stated that "it seems almost certain that, in a case involving coercion or threats, a witness who refuses to testify at trial will not testify to the actions procuring his or her unavailability." 284 F.3d 758, 764 (7th Cir. 2002). Scott observed that it "would not serve the goal of [Fed. R. Evid.] 804(b)(6) to hold that circumstantial evidence cannot support a finding of coercion." Id.

Because Minnesota has recognized that direct and circumstantial evidence carry the same weight, we hold that a district court may draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence in determining whether a defendant’s wrongdoing procured the unavailability of a witness.

State v. Shaka, 927 N.W.2d 762, 768-70 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019).

Third and worst, even under these loose burdens of proof the state doesn't even need to show any criminal or illegal conduct like the sorts of actual injury or threats meeting the statutory definition of witness tampering or the sort of quid pro quo meeting the statutory definition of bribery of a witness for the judge to find sufficient "wrongdoing" for forfeiture of Confrontation Clause rights to apply. In this particular context the "wrongdoing" is instead any effect upon witnesses that intentionally undermines the integrity of the judicial process, which can include any mere pressuring or influencing of witnesses that would be perfectly legal in other contexts:

Betancourt argues that even if the evidence about the content of his conversations with his mother is admissible, those conversations do not constitute evidence of wrongful conduct or that he intended to procure the unavailability of the witnesses. He asserts that his request to his mother to have the witnesses change their statements is consistent with his right to be presumed innocent and was only a plea to have the witnesses be truthful. But, in addition to evidence of Betancourt's conversations asking his mother to get the witnesses to change their statements, the record contains evidence of D.S.'s statements to his probation officer and the victims-services representative that he and A.S. were pressured by relatives not to cooperate with the prosecution.

"While defendants have no duty to assist the tate in proving their guilt, they do have the duty to refrain from acting in ways that destroy the integrity of the criminal-trial system." Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2280 (2006). ... In Cox, the supreme court explained that "[t]he forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception is aimed at defendants who intentionally interfere with the judicial process." 779 N.W.2d at 850.

State v. Betancourt, A13-0732, 10-11 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2013)

More to the point, although cases in Minnesota and the Eighth Circuit encompassing Minnesota haven't precisely defined the scope of sufficient "wrongdoing" beyond the above clarification in Betancourt, the way Shaka above favorably cited the Seventh Circuit's Scott case on a separate issue suggests that they'd just as easily adopt Scott's definition of "wrongdoing" which is so broad as to include even applying any "pressure" or "undue influence" to a witness regardless of whether doing so was illegal or not:

Rule 804(b)(6) requires, first, that Scott engage in "wrongdoing." That word is not defined in the text of Rule 804(b)(6), although the advisory committee's notes point out that "wrongdoing" need not consist of a criminal act. One thing seems clear: causing a person not to testify at trial cannot be considered the "wrongdoing" itself, otherwise the word would be redundant. So we must focus on the actions procuring the unavailability. Scott argues his actions were not sufficiently evil because they were not akin to murder, physical assault, or bribery. Although such malevolent acts are clearly sufficient to constitute "wrongdoing," they are not necessary.

The notes make clear that the rule applies to all parties, including the government. Although, in the ugliest criminal cases, murder and physical assaults are all too possible on the defendant's side, it seems unlikely that the rule was needed to curtail government murder of potential witnesses. Rather, it contemplates application against the use of coercion, undue influence, or pressure to silence testimony and impede the truth-finding function of trials.

U.S. v. Scott, 284 F.3d 758, 763-64 (7th Cir. 2002)

That said, even under such a wishy-washy standard it's not at all clear that Nick will even end up being right by accident, because outside of any DMs and calls that Aaron and Geanu decline to discuss publicly, there's not even circumstantial evidence of Aaron even so much as pressuring or unduly influencing Geanu to cause them to do anything other than what they were already going to do anyway: go be truthful if they're forced to go, or blow off this annoying hassle altogether if they're not forced to go. Aaron and Geanu appearing "affable" on stream is definitely not enough, "just jokes" on stream about what a trial would hypothetically be like in their absence is probably not enough, and Nick is retarded if he thinks the state won't need more to put on the record. A search warrant for Aaron and Geanu's private communications could maybe get there, or Geanu snaking Aaron with disclosure of everything he's said to them could maybe get there, but barring some major breakthrough along those lines there's no shot at piercing the Confrontation Clause in this case. Not a fucking chance.

My guess is that this is Nick's way of setting up damage control in advance of what he suspects is coming up, so that after the case gets thrown out over failure to produce indispensable witnesses, he could still throw out the cope that he was always right about his brilliant Rule 804(b)(6) masterstroke and "if only the retarded prosecutor had listened" to him they would have had Aaron dead to rights, and it's not on him if they chickened out. This is just more of the same "what-if" cope seen in how he continued to defend his Franks motion even after it and its interlocutory appeal had been denied, so that he and every sycophant could still fantasize about how his glorious post-trial appeal would have prevailed in some parallel timeline if only the damned gubmint hadn't forced him into a plea for the sake of his family and his mental health. Same shit, different day.

For whatever it's worth, Keanu told Ralph if they are subpoenaed, they will comply.

She didn't even go that far necessarily, and it was just that "if we have to go, we will go." For example Minnesota subpoenas for Geanu have already been issued to make them feel like they're "subpoenaed" but that doesn't mean they "have to go" even if they get personally served with those, and even if and when they get served with papers from the eventual New York proceeding (oddly still not filed for some reason), they still would not yet "have to go" since there would be an opportunity to have their challenges heard in that New York proceeding. It would not be until a final order denying their challenge in the New York proceeding and an order denying a stay of the order's enforcement pending appeal (or an adverse appellate decision following such a stay) that they would, at long last, actually "have to go." Whether all that shit would get done before May or whether the trial would be postponed for it all still remains to be seen.

Oh man is this the Frank’s hearing all over again?

Knowing in some detail Rekieta's brief and dismal history as a failed strip mall attorney, it's hard to take his lawyerly moments seriously. My legal background consists of sporadically watching Law & Order re-runs and I'd trust me over him as counsel in a legal dispute.

IDK, this time he's not alone with top legal minds backing him up on this one and working around the clock, so Aaron's attorney ought to be shakin' in his boots:


[X] [A]


[X] [A]

 

[Pentamidine]

An hour-ish ago:

View attachment 7036134

First of all, gross. Nick sounds like he's into Geno being excited by looking at Kayla. (I don't recall that, btw. I remember him laughing.)

Second, a ridiculous threat of a civil suit against Geno.

This doesn't make any sense. There's grasping at straws and then there's this. This is worse than his Franks waddamark logic.

"Excited utterance" ok, fine, introduce the video from the show. There's no evidence in the show clip that a nude photo was sent. Also, this doesn't address confrontation clause.

"Adverse interest statement" isn't that just for parties in a case? Isn't it 'adverse party statement'? Also even if they were a party, 'it could be argued that blah blah' is a fuckin stretch

 

[VeteranOfTheRetardWars]

Man, it's crazy looking back at things.
When Nick started he was just a dude. Some guy from a small town who wanted to talk about a case he found interesting, and yeah he may not be the world's best lawyer but he was educated enough to explain what certain words or arguments meant so it went over pretty well. Then he found some other interesting cases and talked about those. Then one of those cases caught a lot of people's eyes and he found some success. Then he covered a case that was even bigger, and the next even bigger. He was pulling guests and making lawtube into an actual thing and homie was set to break out of Youtube and go pro, but then the drinking.
But then the drinking, but then the coke, but then the arrest, but then the child abuse/neglect, but then the cuckoldry, and it just went off the rails and it's hard to conceive that the guy in the video below is the same human being, Honestly, it's really sad.

People may not agree with this, but I, having been there from early on, agree with Josh that Nick's brain genuinely changed from substance abuse. Mostly the booze, that's inarguable at this point. My belief is that substance addiction accentuates the worst parts of one's personality whilst diminishing the good parts, and damn does Nick fit that to a T.

 

[Vibralldo]

Man, it's crazy looking back at things.
When Nick started he was just a dude. Some guy from a small town who wanted to talk about a case he found interesting, and yeah he may not be the world's best lawyer but he was educated enough to explain what certain words or arguments meant so it went over pretty well. Then he found some other interesting cases and talked about those. Then one of those cases caught a lot of people's eyes and he found some success. Then he covered a case that was even bigger, and the next even bigger. He was pulling guests and making lawtube into an actual thing and homie was set to break out of Youtube and go pro, but then the drinking.
But then the drinking, but then the coke, but then the arrest, but then the child abuse/neglect, but then the cuckoldry, and it just went off the rails and it's hard to conceive that the guy in the video below is the same human being, Honestly, it's really sad.

People may not agree with this, but I, having been there from early on, agree with Josh that Nick's brain genuinely changed from substance abuse. Mostly the booze, that's inarguable at this point. My belief is that substance addiction accentuates the worst parts of one's personality whilst diminishing the good parts, and damn does Nick fit that to a T.

I picked a random part in the middle and Nick's opening a scotch, lol

I think Nick was always a degenerate. The underwear dorm, pretending to be gay to befriend Kayla, being friends with Drex the groomer, too many red flags. He just hid it back then and didn't indulge.

Either the drugs and liquor destroyed his inhibitions and made him unable to control his degeneracy or he thought that because he became super popular he "earned" the right to be degenerate and live a rockstar lifestyle.

Maybe both.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

An hour-ish ago:

View attachment 7036134

First of all, gross. Nick sounds like he's into Geno being excited by looking at Kayla. (I don't recall that, btw. I remember him laughing.)

An "excited utterance" is a legal term of art and is a hearsay exception. It means a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition, and if a hearsay exception, the person saying it doesn't have to testify for it to be admitted into evidence for its truth.

However:

An excited utterance also must not violate theconfrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment which ensures that a defendant be given the opportunity to question a witness with statements against them. Under the guidance set out by the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004) , an excited utterance will not be admissible if the declarant is unavailable, the defendant has not been able to cross-examine the witness, and the statement is testimonial.

More overview here.

 

[Melty Butter]

I figured it's worth reposting the moment in question:

(I'll look for a longer version.)

 

[Thunderous Lightning]

Man, it's crazy looking back at things.
When Nick started he was just a dude. Some guy from a small town who wanted to talk about a case he found interesting..... the guy in the video below is the same human being, Honestly, it's really sad.

"But, i'm still the World's most experienced LAWYER. What do YOU mean that drink and drugs have aged me? That's YOUR opinion. I never said that. Monty likes little boy cocks. Aaron ate my goo.... Peace to you. Peace"

 

[Law]

When Nick started he was just a dude.

A dude who was a fan of Dick Masterson.
I think Nick was always a degenerate too.

 

[TrainWreckWatcher]

I think Nick was always a degenerate too.

Drugs didn't make Nick a coomer degen, they just made him fuck up and expose himself as one.

 

[Vibralldo]

A dude who was a fan of Dick Masterson.
I think Nick was always a degenerate too.

On its own that isn't an issue, our dear feeder was a fan

It's seeing juju and thinking "i wish i was him" that's the problem

It's like Jackass and Nick's one of the kids that ignored the "don't try these stunts at home" warning

 

[daffodils]

This actually sounds pretty reasonable, but it's still funny that we are now at "cucks and swingers have rights, too".
Archive/Link


Not sure what he's getting at here
Archive/Link

 

[AltisticRight]

"But, i'm still the World's most experienced LAWYER. What do YOU mean that drink and drugs have aged me? That's YOUR opinion. I never said that. Monty likes little boy cocks. Aaron ate my goo.... Peace to you. Peace"

yes, they have aged. My scotch whisky has been aged for 35 years and my cocaine has been aged on the scalp of my daughter which metabolised into benzoeyzo-lego-nine whatever it's called.

 

[Folgers Can]

How it started:


[X]

How it's going:


[L]

Is there any chance his coping mechanism was ultimately dissociative identity disorder? There's no way the same person with the slightest shred of self-awareness could have written that tweet and those chats in the same day unless he was operating under split personalities, each with total amnesia as to anything the other had typed.

Anyway, whichever identity is in the driver's seat for the moment is live in the nonce chat now, if anyone cares to gawk at the car wreck. Fatty said something a bit ago along the lines of "pipe down Rekieta, I'll get to it" like there's some sort of big reveal coming up shortly, probably something about how he talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

How it's going:

You’d never guess Nick lives with a wife and five children with the many hours per day he spends in chats and on Xitter talking to randos. I know doing something nice for your wife is out of the question, but goddamn. Go shoot some basketball with your kids or play a card game with them, take them for ice cream, SOMETHING to remove you from this habitual humiliation.

 

[USAroXX]

What's going on here is this:

- Nick is talking about a hypothetical situation where Geanu doesn't show. Whereupon the State might still try get the statements they gave to police and/prosecutors (I dunno if they're sworn or unsworn), that attest that Aaron sent Geno a nudie of Kayla, into evidence anyways.

- Aaron's attorney would (rightfully) challenge that on Sixth Amendment grounds. Aaron has a Constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. In this case, Geanu.

- Nick claims the State could try to get around the confrontation clause by invoking Rule 804(b)(6), but what he doesn't really mention is that would require a showing that Geanu are unavailable to testify because of a wrongful act on Aaron's part. Nick merely supposes that if Geanu doesn't show, it must be Aaron's fault. Because, of course, everything is Aaron's fault much in the same way that nothing is ever Nick's fault.

It's a hypothetical built on top of another hypothetical. Geanu hasn't yet refused to show, or failed to show, and logically Aaron can't be responsible for something that hasn't even happened yet.

He's bloviating. He needs to log off and feed his kids (not coke) and make sure they have clean clothes.

What did I tell y'all previously.
Groundhog's Day.
These are ALL just his FRANKs MOTION all over again. That end all, be all motion that PRACTICING lawyers just do not understand.

How did that work for ya, junkie?

Excited Utterance: can only be used against the speaker, otherwise its hearsay by a witness not on the stand [i.e. if geno no shows]. Imagine this guy went to law school and THIS is what he comes up with? This guy is stupid now. No analytical thinking evident, if it was EVER his analysis and not him copying Jersh and others.

For that matter: Aaron could have sent a tatoo pix of a naked woman...hence Geno statement excited or not. Jesus.

Adverse interest: again, cannot use against Aaron because Geno is not Aaron Agent. Not married to him, or partner in business.

Folger's can: please put the broom away. Lololololololol
Aaron getting shown to have intimidated a witness not to show for trial? BUT junkie NOT being shown to have intimidated and harrassed Aaron on EXACTLY the same type of public podcasts is ADDICT LEVEL INTELLECT. Not to mention statements by Geno of State Femnazi harassing Geno n Keanu? Show up to support WOMEN??? Seriously? The state supports women. Who are victims, BUT NOT MEN? That's a good look. And gotta love all the REACHING with caselaw NOT from minnesota, I mean the county DA said first appearance she had NO PRECEDENT on these facts BUT PLEASE continue using junkie and his braindead level muh-watermark research..."very well laid out" I mean SWEET LORD junkie actually posted that?

Wait....I forgot about RAGEPIG and his posting of judge's address and Aarons address, but Minnesota did nothing!!!! It's like you MUST repeat Addict brain arguments like they are not actually absurd??? WTAF

Lolololololol

Frank's Motion
Watermark.
PULL UP folger's Can.
Too many psycho long posts on here.

I guarantee you the county attorney told Junkie that if Geno does not show, they drop the case. Hence, addict hole brain, is scrambling for legal arguments because he is a moron.

Folgers IF it was LONG sarcasm posts, uh OK. But cut it shorter.
Brevity is the soul of WIT
[as u c I M just a Twit].

 

[Melty Butter]

How it started:

View attachment 7036893
[X]

How it's going:

View attachment 7036897
[L]

Is there any chance his coping mechanism was ultimately dissociative identity disorder? There's no way the same person with the slightest shred of self-awareness could have written that tweet and those chats in the same day unless he was operating under split personalities, each with total amnesia as to anything the other had typed.

Anyway, whichever identity is in the driver's seat for the moment is live in the nonce chat now, if anyone cares to gawk at the car wreck. Fatty said something a bit ago along the lines of "pipe down Rekieta, I'll get to it" like there's some sort of big reveal coming up shortly, probably something about how he talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded.

I can't. He's particularly pathetic tonight.

 

[USAroXX]

This actually sounds pretty reasonable, but it's still funny that we are now at "cucks and swingers have rights, too".
Archive/Link
View attachment 7036861

Not sure what he's getting at here
Archive/Link
View attachment 7036880

Cucks n swingers have rights too...

Just NOT multiple wives for mormons in an ACTUAL RELIGION...

YEAH, that Totally sounds reasonable?

PLEASE AARON
Make sure your attorney READS these two posts about "making her bleed" to every witness who testifies! AND HE IS HIGH!!!! No way a sober person keeps posting "bleed" claim. None.

OMFG
This junkie is repulsive.
But it explains why minnesota 6 continues to use drugs, imagine being used like that where a loser rejoices and finds it funny he made you bleed!!!! No wonder kayla is a pillhead, the kind of fucked up logic she endured for 20 years!!!!

But Fuck you Kayla
You should have protected your kids.
So should those grandparents.
Somebody send those grandparents "The sociopath next door" book. Holy Fuck

 

[Captain Manning]

How it started:


[X]

How it's going:


[L]

Actually, I'm with Aaron on this one. I've had Japanese cuisine. It's overpriced for what you get. Especially when you're talking sushi, which I've never liked. Give me the Chinese buffet.

Nick is one of those pretentious faggots that thinks the size of the check determines the quality of the meal. You can very much tell he had a privileged upbringing.

Is there any chance his coping mechanism was ultimately dissociative identity disorder? There's no way the same person with the slightest shred of self-awareness could have written that tweet and those chats in the same day unless he was operating under split personalities, each with total amnesia as to anything the other had typed.

Hell, I just pointed out a few pages ago there's no way any man with self-awareness should be able to have made that tweet after... ummm... how many fucking months has he been going at it now? I've lost count. It's at least as far back as May or June that he's been completely incapable of keeping Aaron's name out of his mouth.

I can't... he's particularly pathetic tonight.

That's fucking disgusting.