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.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

What would the outcome of the harassment restraining order be?

  • A WIN for the Toe against Patrick Melton.

    Votes: 63 18.8%
  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 91 27.1%
  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 54 16.1%
  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 124 36.9%

  • Total voters
    336
I know I've said this before but it's just too funny.

Remember when Nick said he's done nothing wrong and that Aaron betrayed them all and will get a felony. All that righteous conviction and fury.

Fast forward to today, Nick is deeply depressed and buckbroken. He has admitted to felony drug charges.

Aaron, for his crimes against the Qover, will pay the grand total of a KFC bargain bucket with sides.
 
I’m interested to see Rekeita’s drunken cope next time he talks to an uninterested pedo Melton.
Remember Pedomelt's unironic fans weren't even aboard the Rekieta crazy train at the time of the Franks hearing bullshit, or had only just heard about him. This will be their first time they got to hear this skeletal retard scream angry coked-up gibberish insisting he can totally predict the future and that anyone who disagrees with him is the real liar and fool, only for his much ballyhooed hot shit event to evaporate into a tiny sulfurous fart of nothing.

Remember he basically promised this greasy pedo's hangers-on a total Aarongeddon. They never even got to experience a Nick who could at least sometimes connect with a joke and were already getting sick of his rambling, brain-charred bullshit. The only reason they had any tolerance for him was he seemed like he might be a tool to attack Aaron.

Well, now he's delivered and look what he delivered. A great big pile of nothing for pedomelt and his fans, and another win for the Toe. I can't imagine they're going to be very impressed.

Cuckieta disappoints another bunch of bitches with an intensely disappointing impotent Balldo performance.
It’s common to feature the post where it was first announced in the thread, as we’ve covered a lot of ground since-
Null actually came into the thread to tell someone to write a featurable post because apparently he didn't think there was one.
There has been zero change in MCRO, no documents filed or anything, and the case is still schedule for a motion hearing and a trial.
And it remains a hilarious possibility that Aaron dumbly stumbles into a huge victory only to step on another rake before getting to collect on it.
 
Aaron Imholte, Nicholas Rekieta's polycule nemisis, has apparantly pled down to a small misdemeanor at the cost of $50 for the charge of "nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images" aka revenge porn—Case # 73-CR-24-6910 on MCRO. Details are not clear at this time.
The prosecutor saw Our Wife's mombod and said "yeah, worth about fiddy."
 
absolutelyslatternly.png
 
Fifty dollars? Whenever I am highly sympathetic to a criminal but have to acknowledge their guilt, my throwaway default statement is "oh just fine em fifty bucks, slap their wrist and send them on their way." I can't believe it was acknowledged that he did this, but the entire value of the transgression was valued at 50 dollars. This is far better than a not guilty verdict, because not guilty doesn't speak to magnitude of offense. Guilty with a magnitude of fifty dollars is far funnier and more satisfying.
 
The Toe is probably going to take advantage of the MN "deeming" statute. If he gets a tiny fine and a stay of imposition, the conviction will be deemed a misdemeanor even if the original charge was for a felony or a gross misdemeanor.


Subdivision 1.Felony.​


Notwithstanding a conviction is for a felony:
(1) the conviction is deemed to be for a misdemeanor or a gross misdemeanor if the sentence imposed is within the limits provided by law for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor as defined in section 609.02; or
(2) the conviction is deemed to be for a misdemeanor if the imposition of the prison sentence is stayed, the defendant is placed on probation, and the defendant is thereafter discharged without a prison sentence.

Subd. 2.Gross misdemeanor.​


Notwithstanding that a conviction is for a gross misdemeanor, the conviction is deemed to be for a misdemeanor if:
(1) the sentence imposed is within the limits provided by law for a misdemeanor as defined in section 609.02; or
(2) if the imposition of the sentence is stayed, the defendant is placed on probation, and the defendant is thereafter discharged without sentence.


Minn. Stat. § 609.13​
 
Your understanding of the word "public" is the issue.
The statute doesn't require "public" dissemination.
§Subd. 7. Definitions.
(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given.
(b) "Dissemination" means distribution to one or more persons, other than the person depicted in the image, or publication by any publicly available medium.
 
Aaron Imholte, Nicholas Rekieta's polycule nemisis, has apparantly pled down to a small misdemeanor at the cost of $50 for the charge of "nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images" aka revenge porn—Case # 73-CR-24-6910 on MCRO. Details are not clear at this time.
So this is how the Balldoverse ends, where everyone gets off easy and nobody learns a damn thing.
 
This is exactly the outcome everyone with half a brain expected. This obviously excludes Nick since he only has about a quarter of a brain left after the drug-induced damage he did to it.
I dunno. I was expecting a nothingburger, but not a shit sundae with an insult cherry on top.
You do not see a single thing on the video. The clip proves nothing without context of being able to prove a picture exists and it was sent.
It's sort of like "smoking weed" on camera. Under some circumstances, you might get a search warrant for that (especially with more evidence than just that) but unless you actually turn up contraband, the defendant can say it was just a stoner comedy bit and was actually oregano or something.
I think they were saying "you have a house and family? The people I usually deal with are total losers who have nothing and live in squalor.
Nick lived in disgusting squalor, too, a hoarder's nest. He's so ashamed of the disgusting, filthy state of his home he has desperately thrashed around doing everything he could to ensure nobody ever sees the vile wretched depravity he lived in.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if plates have gone flying in the Rekieta’s household? Since Nick being a moron has once again humiliated Kayla.
She probably just upped her dosage and put on Star Trek while Nick is trapped in his gooning room gooning to how he once again publicly humiliated his wife and hitting the Galaxy gas waiting for his buddy Melton to stream so he can superchat weird things
 
I dunno. I was expecting a nothingburger, but not a shit sundae with an insult cherry on top.
Only Aaron knows what the state disclosed in discovery. If they do not even have the picture without Geno testifying, he might roll the dice and it gets dismissed.

The statute doesn't require "public" dissemination.
The definition of disseminate would be to "spread widely", which on the other hand raises the question if what Aaron did actually falls under this statute at all. Technically he did not disseminate at all if we go by the hard definition of the word.

I think it is intended to mean, in this instance, to share the picture with any third party. But the entire law is vague and gay so that they can charge people with bullshit it was never meant for.

[EDIT] I obviously missed/forgot the fact that they decided to redefine what "disseminate" means to fit the purpose of their law. Mega gay. Not editing the above post.
 
Last edited:
The definition of disseminate would be to "spread widely", which on the other hand raises the question if what Aaron did actually falls under this statute at all.
The definition of "disseminate" is whatever the statute says it's defined as in its definition section.

(b) "Dissemination" means distribution to one or more persons, other than the person depicted in the image, or publication by any publicly available medium.
 
The likelihood of Aaron seeing an actual conviction or punishment I think is relatively low provided he actually fights it out, but the chances of more salacious, embarrassing details coming out about the Rekietas (and other witnesses) will be high.

Nick will regret this in the end, I bet.
Gonna pat myself on my back for calling this result way back in September of last year.
The Toe is probably going to take advantage of the MN "deeming" statute. If he gets a tiny fine and a stay of imposition, the conviction will be deemed a misdemeanor even if the original charge was for a felony or a gross misdemeanor.
Good find.
The definition of disseminate would be to "spread widely", which on the other hand raises the question if what Aaron did actually falls under this statute at all. Technically he did not disseminate at all if we go by the hard definition of the word.
The definition of "disseminate" is whatever the statute says it's defined as in its definition section.
@Gobermental Supervisor, you're using the word "dissemination" as a general dictionary definition. When interpreting the words in a statute, if a word is defined within the statute, that definition supersedes the general dictionary definition. Since "dissemination" has its own definition, that definition controls over the ordinary meaning of the word. All laws are interpreted in this manner.

So @AnOminous is correct when he says the statute does not require dissemination to be public or widespread. If "dissemination" was not defined in the statute, you would be right that we would use the plain meaning of the word. But that's not the case here.
 
Back