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

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

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?


  • Total voters
    1,268
  • Poll closed .
But it is my firm belief that it IS in the public interest to be shown, as this skelly freak gets to lie about his case, the evidence, and STILL gets to do a plea deal, (barring the acceptance).
A public interest angle would best work from say, the local radio station or newspaper, than from @BalldoBaggins1488 from the Internet.

A concise video of all of the Balldoman's very public lies, whether in chat or on a stream, would likely be the best thing to be done from The Sektur.

Of course, I don't condone cowtipping, but a supercut could easily be shared on locals, discord, YouTube comments (or at least rumble), etc., in addition to interested parties.
 
To salvage some social credit by stopping his attacks on the church where his children are involved--and he must be to some limited extent? Is he learning that shitting where he eats is a bad idea?

I thought about this (too much). You're right. I believe Nick and Kayla have returned to the Evangelical Christian Church of New London though I can't prove it (yet).

(And that's fine. If there is ever a place for deliverance and forgiveness, it should be a Christian church. Also, his kids never stopped attending thanks to the grandparents - many receipts on that. If that family survives intact, it's probably healthy that they all attend the same church.)

Some of the church reporters to Melin may have told him that they didn't focus on the drugs to be Minnesota Nice. Or Nick is just creating his own fanfic to rationalize the fact that the entire congregation was horrified by the obvious swinging and drugs.

It's as if he doesn't realize that dozens of them probably watched his show. That always makes me laugh.

This does not sit right with me. In a time where peoples words on social media sites, in places around the World, get them actual jail time. We simultaneously have this lying cuckold spouting all kinds of bullshit about what happened to him publicly,

Worse, he publicly called Pomplun and Sweep liars, said that cops smeared coke on his kid's head, and defamed Judge Fischer on a stream that went viral. These are all State employees.

I understand that Null and Hardin have a lot to deal with... but I'd be appealing to the MN Supreme Court on this matter. The Farms would fund the effort, easily.
 
He publicly called Pomplun and Sweep liars, said that cops smeared coke on his kid's head, and defamed Judge Fischer on a stream that went viral. These are all State employees.

I understand that Null and Hardin have a lot to deal with... but I'd be appealing to the MN Supreme Court on this matter. The Farms would fund the effort, easily.
Agreed. If you've committed a serious crime and plead guilty to it you should not be allowed to try and spin the narrative that it's everybody elses fault but yours. I get that in the early stages he was coping in every way that he could in saying he dindu nuffin. But as you say, these statements of false accusation against the State employees should not be allowed to fly.

In some ways I guess they knew the had him bang to rights, and he was going to be found guilty whatever he did. We all knew that, Nick coped and tried every false narrative he could to get the case chucked out.

My hope is that he faces the full hand of justice upon his skelly shoulder. This cow has not finished saying dumb shit or doing dumb shit yet. More legal issues will follow. I have no doubt.
 
The issue is that nobody wants to waste their time and money going after the documents and footage.
I agree 100% that both should be public, with the minors redacted/blurred as is appropriate.
KF has been very good about keeping the children out of it, Jannies deleting their names when they did show up and non-redacted documents being deleted.

Various streamers also went out of their way to redact the children's names from documents before showing them online.
There is zero reason why those CHIPS case documents, as they pertain to Nick and Kayla, should be under seal.

The bodycam footage on the other hand is considered non-public by default and is only automatically released under certain conditions in MN. The two most common cases are discharge of a firearm by police, death caused by police or the for us relevant one, public interest and/or prevention of misinformation spread.

(Like the retards always do when another Nigger gets himself shot by police after walking through 6 tasers because they are high on Meth. That is the poster case for when footage gets released quickly to prevent public unrest)

I do not think the state actually gives a shit about Nick and the general public in MN has not taken notice of the case because its just some retard drug addict talking shit, why should they care? In order to actually get this released it would require someone to invest the time and money to go through the courts, which I am not sure is worth it tbh.

April getting a payday and consenting to the release is the best way imho, especially because it could happen quickly.
 
It's as if he doesn't realize that dozens of them probably watched his show. That always makes me laugh.

He stated (read: whinged) multiple times on his show that certain people watched his show and had... comments... He also said that he told specific people NOT to watch his show once they learned about it because they would not like it.

Nick is and has been well aware that people in his community were critical of his show, but as his income grew, he transitioned from whinging to tough guy 'fuck off! I dont care what you think!' complaints.
 
I'm obviously having a bit of a Dan Sletta moment and feeling a tad rageful regarding Nick because of it.

I have a question for the lawnerds - @Potentially Criminal , @AnOminous - or anyone else:

I recently reviewed the legal documents available for Kayla on MCRO. Discovery Disclosure document dated 7/16/2024 for Kayla:


1741615713048.png

I don't see this on any of the discovery docs for NICK, oddly. Can anyone explain that? Nick's adjacent documents:
1741617684481.png

My theory for Nick's October 27 meltdown (stream, et al) is that he was provided with the recordings from April, Aaron, Dan, Shari, and Bitzan. But wouldn't he have had that information well before that?
 
I'm obviously having a bit of a Dan Sletta moment and feeling a tad rageful regarding Nick because of it.

I have a question for the lawnerds - @Potentially Criminal , @AnOminous - or anyone else:

I recently reviewed the legal documents available for Kayla on MCRO. Discovery Disclosure document dated 7/16/2024 for Kayla:


View attachment 7076232

I don't see this on any of the discovery docs for NICK, oddly. Can anyone explain that? Nick's adjacent documents:
View attachment 7076376

My theory for Nick's October 27 meltdown (stream, et al) is that he was provided with the recordings from April, Aaron, Dan, Shari, and Bitzan. But wouldn't he have had that information well before that?
You missed the correct document. Nick has had 6 total discovery disclosures, one (July 3rd 2024) contained all those witness statements as well.
The others were additions that were made available as they came in (drug tests) and supplemental police reports.

1742630616254.png
See attachment for complete document
 

Attachments

Do any lawnerds here (@Potentially Criminal) know if requests to leave the state should be published on MCRO/public record before a finalized plea deal? Nick's request to leave the state for LA is not on the record that I can find.
 
Do any lawnerds here (@Potentially Criminal) know if requests to leave the state should be published on MCRO/public record before a finalized plea deal? Nick's request to leave the state for LA is not on the record that I can find.
I'm pretty sure unless it's specifically required to be court authorized, it's between the probation department and the probationer. It only goes to the court if there's a violation or there's some reason it's being litigated (like the probationer is contesting the probation department's refusal).
 
I'm pretty sure unless it's specifically required to be court authorized, it's between the probation department and the probationer. It only goes to the court if there's a violation or there's some reason it's being litigated (like the probationer is contesting the probation department's refusal).

So Nick had to ask his probation officer and get approval?

Do we know how probation works in Minnesota? Are probation officers separate from the police force, or could this have been someone that Nick had interacted with before?
 
Nick's not on probation. He paid bail and can do whatever he wants, until his plea is entered or (hypothetically) he ends up going to trial and were to end up getting convicted.

Edit to add: I guess he might have some sort of thing with the state on the family court crap, but that's not visible to the public. Judging by his behavior, I'm going to guess NO.
 
Nick's not on probation. He paid bail and can do whatever he wants, until his plea is entered or (hypothetically) he ends up going to trial and were to end up getting convicted.

Edit to add: I guess he might have some sort of thing with the state on the family court crap, but that's not visible to the public. Judging by his behavior, I'm going to guess NO.

He did ask the judge about his Hackamania trip at the plea hearing (without naming the destination or venue)--expressing concern that the PSI would not be done in time to allow him to travel 'for work'. It seemed that he had to seek leave of someone to travel, and I assumed that before his official sentencing he was not allowed to travel freely.
 
He did ask the judge about his Hackamania trip at the plea hearing (without naming the destination or venue)--expressing concern that the PSI would not be done in time to allow him to travel 'for work'. It seemed that he had to seek leave of someone to travel, and I assumed that before his official sentencing he was not allowed to travel freely.
Nick's not very good at legal stuff.

My assumption was it was a scheduling concern from the transcript, but IDFK. Nick's a moron.
 
Nick's not very good at legal stuff.

My assumption was it was a scheduling concern from the transcript, but IDFK. Nick's a moron.
As far as I can tell from the transcript it seems Nick currently needs approval to travel.
They are requesting it from the court, but a pre-sentencing evaluation has also been ordered so Nick will already have a probation officers who did that evaluation.

Seems like he was granted permission to travel, doing so without permission would be really fucking stupid. Which I will not put beyond Nick, but he is a self-righteous kind of moron, not the "I might go to prison if I do this, but I will do it anyway and show up on a live show so everyone can see it!" kind of moron.

1743328971813.png
 
I read that as he'll have restrictions after sentencing (which could have been before hackamania), and apparently the most important thing to Nick is going to hang out with pedophiles.

But whatever, I could easily be wrong about the restrictions, if any. Given his bond, I just don't see that as likely.
 
So Nick had to ask his probation officer and get approval?
I honestly don't know. He's such a brain-damaged retard at this point he might have just totally blown off any restrictions and not even bothered to ask.
Which I will not put beyond Nick, but he is a self-righteous kind of moron, not the "I might go to prison if I do this, but I will do it anyway and show up on a live show so everyone can see it!" kind of moron.
He is that kind of moron, though.
 
Back