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.

[John Andrews Stan]

- Nick claimed today that his Adderall dosage is 10mg and he gets 300mg per month total.
- He uses it for "small bursts" for "spot fatigue" due to being stressed out. When he is stressed out, his narcolepsy kicks in

If Nick had ADHD, Adderall would calm him down, not hype him up. He’s hooked up with a Dr. Feelgood for sure.

 

[1NpuLs]

I wonder what prescription Nick has access to like does Kayla or one of the kids also have a prescription for Adderall. He could have a lot more then just his prescription

 

[AnOminous]

And I’ll also acknowledge my bias—I use AI-generated versions of Rekieta’s voice to poke fun at him.

You're not actually selling them for profit on a per-use basis. While conceivably they could be monetized, that would probably not be sufficient to establish commercial use by itself, just as a movie with a parody clearly mocking some celebrity wouldn't satisfy the requirement (although the issue with specifically AI is not settled at the moment).

For instance, imagine you had a movie with a parody of Jerry Lewis, where you portrayed him as a vicious, abusive drunk, had him flipping over the wheelchairs of Jerry's Kids, and antics like this. Since the purpose would be clearly to mock him, it would probably qualify as parody. Now, imagine instead that you made a movie sort of like King of Comedy, but you'd asked Lewis to star in the movie and he'd refused, and you hired a lookalike to rip off his entire schtick and basically do what you'd have had Lewis do if he'd starred in it. At that point, it would be indefensible.

The issue is directly exploiting someone's reputation and image, to the person's detriment, and profiting specifically from that use. This isn't where the product being sold is the parody, and if people are watching it, it's to laugh at the person being parodied.

I actually think it's arguable, under the rule in White, even to go after the non-Kurt voice, but I personally wouldn't bother. I think that's taking the misappropriation concept too far, and outside the Hollywood knob-gobbling Ninth Circuit you might get smacked for it. However, I think it's utterly unquestionable, at least under current law, that the other pedotips voices and images are well over the line.

(This isn't addressing flaggotry, which would probably succeed. Ordinarily not a fan, but I don't give a fuck when it's Nick. Live by the flag, die by the flag.)

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

That's a sort of different legal issue. The White v. Samsung case I mentioned earlier might apply in that situation, although I'll note it's more of an outlier than a leading case, with lots of subsequent distinguishing cites. The denial of en banc review in that case by the Ninth Circuit also had a scathing dissent by Alex Kozinski, joined by two others, critiquing the reasoning of the panel. I agree with Kozinski's dissent, but the case is an example of how far-reaching the tort is and how ordinary "parody" defenses may simply not apply.

I don't believe this will ever become a legal issue for Nick. I am looking at it more as a threat to his Youtube channel.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't believe this will ever become a legal issue for Nick. I am looking at it more as a threat to his Youtube channel.

It might if some otherwise disinterested party known to be represented by actual practicing lawyers takes an interest. Eric July might have had enough of this cocksucker and be willing to do it, although the more likely result is that a C&D to Pedomelt would have him rolling over and pissing himself.

 

[Strix454]

Was there ever any mention of narcolepsy before he started doing drugs and swinging? Making up new conditions to justify doing drugs is classic addict behavior. Is this an actual thing or is he just classifying his bodies dependency on uppers as narcolepsy?

Yes. He talked about how he was really "suffering" from narcolepsy all the way back to his job out of college at the mortgage bank. But often his descriptions of narcolepsy seem more related to him not sleeping. He seems to stay awake until around maybe 4am or later. Then he uses Provigil before bed-time to wake him up in the morning a very few hours later. IMO he seems to use it more to avoid normal sleep than any actual narcolepsy.

The adderall does seem maybe new and maybe something he got to deal with being sober on probation.

 

[Captain Manning]

I don't believe this will ever become a legal issue for Nick. I am looking at it more as a threat to his Youtube channel.

It's likely not going to become a full blown legal issue for him as long as Melton acquiesces to every single C&D.

Melton is actually doing Nick a favor by being less dumb than Rekieta. My question is whether he'll start seething at Melton for that.

 

[Strix454]

Nick is up to 7k viewers. Someone is obviously buying him views. Even he seems to kind of know it.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

The stream has been on autopilot for about 40 minutes now. Nick claimed he had to drive one of those keeedz somewhere.

Nick not being on the stream and just running the trial without comment only cost him 300 viewers.

I've long wondered if Nick was botting. The numbers previously hadn't added up, but it is possible he's just good at engagement (well, until 2023 at least).

My engagement theory on this, is that Nick watched a lot of camwhores throughout the years. (We know he's been into porn since middle school, but nothing tying him directly to cam whores. Hence, it's just a theory.) Cammers tend to be masters of the parasocial relationships, some at levels even DSP could only dream about. Nick found a way to convert that cam whore model into law streams (or "fun" streams), without the need for nudity or many other bizarre edgelord behaviors. Given his borderline psychopathetic (sic) tendencies and complete disregard for others, whether this was conscious or not, Nick found a way to convert civil codes and dick jokes into "people just giving you money". This is why a lot of the big $20+ chats Nick lingered on, were emotional appeals. (Muh cousin's sister's boyfriend's dog just died, can I have a toast for Killer the Pitbull?)

The bot theory is simple: it's not terribly expensive to buy bots to watch a stream. The Kino Casino thread has documented the discrepancy they have between viewers and chatters, as has The Killstream thread. Some of that may be platform variances (this thread dove deep into the rumble numbers, as has Null). The variance between bots and engaged chatters/donators has only shown up now, because he's only been doing it to help keep his ego inflated.

The hybrid theory: Nick has been paying for bots, but he was historically so good at (parasocial) engagement, that it wasn't noticeable previously. Now that only the dregs remain, it's becoming more obvious.

All the above said, it's just as likely to be inertia. Very few people actually unsubscribe from a channel on youtube- it's an active form of disengagement most people just don't bother with. (There is some debate about whether youtube actually unsubs without user input.) That Nick is losing thousands of viewers per month should be worrying to him- that's above the natural user attrition rate on youtube. It's clear that Nick's engagement is way down, but many watching may just have it on as background noise and not be fully paying attention. If so, it will be death by a thousand (apathetic) paper cuts for him.

Edit: As others have noted while I was writing this or shortly after, the numbers are jumping *A LOT* today. This is either botting or front page "featured" to normies, and the normies are dropping out immediately. Given the dramatic peaks and valleys, I'm inclined to go with botting.

 

[Spaced Outside Cargo]

View attachment 7320998

Came by to make a remark on how he's jumping into the AI cesspool with both feet but stayed to make a remark on his hairline.
Nick needs to start microneedling stat because it didnt look like that last year.

 

[Sneed Force One]

For archival purposes, I’m capturing a snapshot of Supertips.gg’s current Terms of Service, last updated on October 14, 2024.
My Kiwi instincts are tingling, something tells me an update to terms is coming soon. Likely a tweak allowing parody of a person’s likeness, but restricting the use of their actual likeness without consent, or something to that effect.

Ghostarchive
Archive.is
Archive.ph

Edit - Someone is botting Nick lmao, he went from 1.4k then 7k and back down to 2k. Whoever is doing it, you are cruel, giving false hope to this drain circling cuck.

 

[Beavis]

I thought it was hard to bot on YouTube?

 

[200MB]

Nick is up to 7k viewers. Someone is obviously buying him views. Even he seems to kind of know it.

He's dropping back down to normal in huge increments. I just watched his viewers drop from 7.2k to 6k instantly. Chat speed was consistent the whole time.
Also holy shit there is no fucking law commentary here just barely coherent toilet humor. He might as well be going "That's what she said!" every 2 minutes. This is retarded.

EDIT:
Is this nigger doing whippets on stream? He keeps turning his camera off for 20-30 seconds and coming back with his voice altered.

 

[Captain Manning]

Nick is up to 7k viewers. Someone is obviously buying him views. Even he seems to kind of know it.

Lol. Interesting timing. Maybe they saw my post about his numbers being crap. Over 5k people suddenly materialize out of nowhere, all at once?

Seems legit.

It seems completely implausible he'd pull bigger numbers than when he was on with Branca, and before the Supertips/Kurt nonsense.

But what do I know. I'm not a "social media expert."

I've long wondered if Nick was botting. The numbers previously hadn't added up, but it is possible he's just good at engagement (well, until 2023 at least).

You were around during Weebwars, weren't you?

I can guarantee you he was not botting during Weebwars.

The tipoff to botting, to my mind, is low chat engagement. That chat was fucking going a mile a minute back then. And it wasn't robo crap either. Plus there was an entire subforum here, Vic had a substantial fan base, and people paid a lot of money into that GFM.

I didn't pay much attention during Depp and Rittenhouse, but I presume it's the same deal then too.

Nick was legitimately popular once. He's trying to pretend he still is.

Edit - Someone is botting Nick lmao, he went from 1.4k then 7k and back down to 2k

So, confirmed then.

Sad.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

You were around during Weebwars, weren't you?

I can guarantee you he was not botting during Weebwars.

The tipoff to botting, to my mind, is low chat engagement. That chat was fucking going a mile a minute back then. And it wasn't robo crap either. Plus there was an entire subforum here, Vic had a substantial fan base, and people paid a lot of money into that GFM.

I didn't pay much attention during Depp and Rittenhouse, but I presume it's the same deal then too.

Nick was legitimately popular once. He's trying to pretend he still is.

My hybrid theory is Nick was botting but had such high engagement, it wasn't noticeable. As the engagement theory states, Nick struck a balance that raised his chat and certainly paypig engagement, way above even his viewer numbers. That was true from at least the Vic stuff onward. Nick did have an odd jump into youtube from his facebook stuff- whether that was solely off of Dax or not, I cannot say.

Botting youtube is trivial, it just takes money. There are literal farms of phones doing it across Asia and Africa. I'm wondering if the spikes are getting taken down by youtube, or if whoever is doing the botting is just cheap.

Edit to add: at some point, a network effect happened, maybe during the Vic stuff, where Nick was getting traction not just from Jujuheads, but also from the wider anime and eventually the libshit criticism community. The failure in Nick's approach is who remained behind- your Still_lifes scumbags. Most of them somehow don't seem to be able to contribute as much as the old audience.

Edit to also add: It is also possible to bot chyats, but the costs go up for that. Faking supertips is easy (as are most alternate superchat systems), but faking superchats (or rumble rants) takes a lot more money, because it takes off between 20-50% of each transaction just for Google/Rumble's fees, plus the fees to botters.

 

[PixarsTedKennedy]

Nick is up to 7k viewers. Someone is obviously buying him views. Even he seems to kind of know it.

Lol happens right after we point out how shitty his views are.

 

[Vibralldo]

EDIT:
Is this nigger doing whippets on stream? He keeps turning his camera off for 20-30 seconds and coming back with his voice altered.

Nick's disappointed he wasn't sentenced to ass fuck prison so he's doing his damndest to get sent there for just the 30 days and not the full drug sentence

 

[Sneed Force One]

Is this nigger doing whippets on stream? He keeps turning his camera off for 20-30 seconds and coming back with his voice altered.

Abusing Adderall but he thinks he's slick enough to hide it now. He can't afford to contest a CogCity archive twice.

 

[AltisticRight]

>I get 10mg a day or 30mg a month it's not a lot
>later... 300mg a month
>I use it in little bursts for my narcolepsy
>I use it when I get stressed
>Some people use 70mg for a bigger kick... uh I don't know I mean, 50mg maybe
(70mg is a really specific number, so he's taken 70mg as a single dose before. Nice admission.)

Total junkie, confirmed to be abusing his medication. From smaller doses to prolong its effect to larger bumps for a temporary high.
This man is a pillhead. He's Vegas Sober.

 

[Stiffy]

You're not actually selling them for profit on a per-use basis. While conceivably they could be monetized, that would probably not be sufficient to establish commercial use by itself, just as a movie with a parody clearly mocking some celebrity wouldn't satisfy the requirement (although the issue with specifically AI is not settled at the moment).

For instance, imagine you had a movie with a parody of Jerry Lewis, where you portrayed him as a vicious, abusive drunk, had him flipping over the wheelchairs of Jerry's Kids, and antics like this. Since the purpose would be clearly to mock him, it would probably qualify as parody. Now, imagine instead that you made a movie sort of like King of Comedy, but you'd asked Lewis to star in the movie and he'd refused, and you hired a lookalike to rip off his entire schtick and basically do what you'd have had Lewis do if he'd starred in it. At that point, it would be indefensible.

The issue is directly exploiting someone's reputation and image, to the person's detriment, and profiting specifically from that use. This isn't where the product being sold is the parody, and if people are watching it, it's to laugh at the person being parodied.

I actually think it's arguable, under the rule in White, even to go after the non-Kurt voice, but I personally wouldn't bother. I think that's taking the misappropriation concept too far, and outside the Hollywood knob-gobbling Ninth Circuit you might get smacked for it. However, I think it's utterly unquestionable, at least under current law, that the other pedotips voices and images are well over the line.

(This isn't addressing flaggotry, which would probably succeed. Ordinarily not a fan, but I don't give a fuck when it's Nick. Live by the flag, die by the flag.)