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.

Why is Nicholas Rekieta offline?

  • He's spending time with his family, NERDS.

    Votes: 73 10.8%
  • He pissed hot and he's in trouble!

    Votes: 95 14.1%
  • Yet another "family incident" happened.

    Votes: 209 31.1%
  • His lawyer ordered him to shut up.

    Votes: 175 26.0%
  • He's busy procuring the 5k LOCALS gift.

    Votes: 70 10.4%
  • He's dead.

    Votes: 51 7.6%

  • Total voters
    673
Drex is a fucking retard, but he is consistent and he does not fuck around with superfluities when discussing what he thinks of someone.
Nick drugged his kids, simple as.
Occam’s Razor, for a device Nick likes so much.
And Drex knows the 'real Nick' as they liked to claim so often on streams. If Drex thinks Nick gave his kid coke then he'd be the person to know. The audience was all fooled by the fake Nick.
 
Seems nonsensically pro Nick. Do you think Kayla wanted her husband to just fuck someone else so she could permanently hang up her sexuality? Market value is important to women’s self esteem, and their perception of being desired is probably more important to their arousal than men’s. I think it’s highly likely she’d have some investment in Aaron even if only as a consolation prize.
I haven't stated my opinion on where Kayla stood on this because I haven't done enough research. I was rewatching this based solely on paying attention to stories related to April and the formation of the polycule. My best guess is exactly what Aaron said which is "Kayla told Nick she thought this is what he wanted and so she was just trying to give him what he wanted." Which, if that's the case would NOT include getting feelings for Aaron. (From Nick's perspective).

@Fapcop does it count as a lie if at the time Aaron was lying to himself to protect what little pride he had left? Just watching the interview is tough bc you can see the guy is clearly in a lot of pain and is rightfully lashing out, but I think some of what he was saying was nonsensical and he should have known that. Case in point the hunting story. It was painfully obvious what was happening but it felt like he wanted to compartmentalize it and process it later. Also he did lie about the entire situation until post arrest so he is definitely capable of lying but his track record post arrest has been good I'll give you that, minus claiming constantly he is disconnected from all the stuff going on with drama. He is definitely very acutely aware of everything and spends just as much time paying attention as anyone so I'm not sure why he continues saying that
 
Last edited:
So nicks just molesterson and ralph now. All all 3 get extremely red shirt faced when a women is beating their ass in a argument lmao
Dax at least doesnt get arrested. He pushes others to but won't do it himself. Ralph is the perfect comparison. They both have children they hate, felonies, polycules, drug addictions and eventually they will share the same fate.
 
He could try, but Nick is not longer adept at deception anymore. He cannot feign interest in trial streaming for more thay a few days/hoirs or play nice with other streamers and STFU about his personal grudges.
No, I meant he could grift the hell out of step 9 if he genuinely acknowledged and overcame his narcissism. Deception wouldn't be required because it would be genuine. I can see how what I wrote before wasn't clear. Of course, this will never happen so I am not even sure why I am entertaining it.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure how to feel about this. I can see how Nick would take this as a personal vendetta against him from Josh and the Farms, and I cannot say that he is 100% unjustified.

Am I wrong?
I mean, there might be an element of that, but there is also a practical reason for doing this:

Hardin is likely a better attorney than Schneider, and Null could spoon-feed him the information collected on this site that would bury Nick insofar as what he said about Monty, and why Nick is wrong to do what he did.

Ultimately though, I don't know why Hardin took the case, but I do think it is a very positive development for Monty. Not about to look a gift horse in the mouth here.
 
It's just a really STUPID position, if you ask me. Article III, which is an essential part of checks and balances, doesn't make any goddamned sense if the conclusion made in Marbury is wrong.
Similarly, why even bother with the Article V amendment procedure if Congress can simply pass a law doing away with the Bill of Rights?
Occam’s Razor, for a device Nick likes so much.
Nick probably thinks Occam's Razor is something to shave his balls with so he can get the Balldo on without pulling hairs.
 
I mean, there might be an element of that, but there is also a practical reason for doing this:

Hardin is likely a better attorney than Schneider, and Null could spoon-feed him the information collected on this site that would bury Nick insofar as what he said about Monty, and why Nick is wrong to do what he did.

Ultimately though, I don't know why Hardin took the case, but I do think it is a very positive development for Monty. Not about to look a gift horse in the mouth here.
It's a tossup though on who makes Nick seethe harder. The guy he has personal history with and holds a grudge against or the guy he believes made a connection someone he thinks betrayed him. I think they should just team up so he can seethe harder at everybody involved.
 
I haven't stated my opinion on where Kayla stood on this because I haven't done enough research. I was rewatching this based solely on paying attention to stories related to April and the formation of the polycule. My best guess is exactly what Aaron said which is "Kayla told Nick she thought this is what he wanted and so she was just trying to give him what he wanted." Which, if that's the case would NOT include getting feelings for Aaron. (From Nick's perspective).
I actually don’t want to have more of this conversation, but I’m just stating for the record that parenthetically adding “from Nick’s perspective” was like dropping a bomb on the whole paragraph preceding it, and now it’s tl;dr for me to try to untangle wtf you’re talking about.

I thought we were talking about whether liked the toe
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: woodedbag
Assuming there has not been a deposition of Nick yet as a part of discovery in the Montagraph lawsuit, this is really bad news for Nick. A deposition of Nick by a very good attorney probably fully aware of Nick's history promises excellent entertainment value.

Schneider was ok for the phases he handled and a rational choice if Nick had been sane and settled the case. But going to a different attorney for a full-blown trial against Randazza is a good move.
 
They need some reason to do it. Also if you refuse you can pretty much expect to be dragged out regardless. But they pulled over Mimms with an expired plate and noticed a bulge in his jacket as he was exiting the vehicle and, reasonably concerned for their own safety, frisked him and the bulge was indeed a loaded revolver.

(So far, every time of record Nick has been pulled over, there's been sufficient justification to tell him to leave the car, if not because of the primary offense, because of him acting like a babbling retard. I'm honestly amazed he didn't get a DWI because you know he was under the influence at least one of those times.)

So the expired plates justified stopping him and asking him to leave the car, and the bulge that turned to be a revolver justified a search under Terry.
has the interpretation of Ohio v Mimms changed since the 70s? the way i understand it, it was ruled that police don't need any reason to ask you to step out of your car because it's an extremely minor violation of your privacy, and easily rectified if there's no problem, and provides high amounts of safety for officers. i'm pretty sure ohio v mimms is the case cited whenever there's an officer-involved shooting of a sovcit who escalates because they refuse to leave their vehicles.
 
Russel Greer will be Nick's ace in the hole for trial.
He can testify about the stalker behavior of Hardin.
Maybe a whippit or six might level off old Russ. Either way, I can't imagine he'd be any harder to understand with his voice all nitrous'd up.
 
has the interpretation of Ohio v Mimms changed since the 70s? the way i understand it, it was ruled that police don't need any reason to ask you to step out of your car because it's an extremely minor violation of your privacy, and easily rectified if there's no problem, and provides high amounts of safety for officers.
They still can't just pull you over for no reason at all.
 
They still can't just pull you over for no reason at all.
i understand the confusion now, i was only looking at ohio vs mimms for its changes to how asking you to exit the car worked, it's entirely correct that they still need some kind of reason to pull you over, or you're gonna get a nice taxpayer-funded payday.
 
Back