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.

What would the outcome of the harassment restraining order be?

  • A WIN for the Toe against Patrick Melton.

    Votes: 63 15.1%

  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 6 1.4%

  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 105 25.2%

  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 76 18.3%

  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 166 39.9%
  • Total voters
    416
Melty Butter said:
Oh hey! We got the whole pic. EVS sent it to Keanu. She's live right now and showed it.
View attachment 7505334
Heels confirmed.
Click to expand...
Everything is wrong with Nick’s outfit. The tie being off. The lack of a darker belt to break the matching pink. The old man shorts. The clown shoes. He looks like a wacky side character in a comic book.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: suspended animation, Essay2414778, Peanut Butter Trails and 15 others
LemonParty said:
At this rate finding out that there was a 6th child who was sacrificed to Moloch is not out of the question.
Click to expand...
According to Nick, it was 3 or 4. Can't remember the exact number of miscarriages ...

john marston said:
Why is tie tied wrong? He was once a lawyer, I know for a fact that he knows how to tie a tie. It looks horrible
Click to expand...
Probably put forward by another Kiwi, but I am lazy tonight ...


The sloppy tie is a studied element, in order to make him look "boyish." The whole theme is an innocent kid surprised by two forward naughty girls.
 
  • Horrifying
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: john marston, dacky blarks, Peanut Butter Trails and 13 others
Grayback said:
Nick is angrily vagueposting again.
ree.webp (twitter / archive)
Once again, he can't actually refute anything. He has no contradictory evidence that he can point to, where X couldn't be true because of Y. He won't even specify which thing(s) Hardin is supposedly lying about.
Click to expand...
Penguin Soldier said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hardin isn't the lawyer for the bodycam footage suit that was just filed. So even if anything in the filing was a lie (which none of it is), he wouldn't be the one lying to the court, it would be *his lawyer*, would it not?
Click to expand...
Strix454 said:
It depends on which part of the filings Nick is referring to. If its legal arguments made in the filing, that would the attorney. If its material in the filing that directly sources to Hardin or Hardin's interactions with various government officials, then Hardin would in theory be lying.
Click to expand...

Since he almost never clarifies lame vagueposting like this anyway, here's a few wild guesses:

1. He could now be projecting onto Hardin a similar vague accusation he previously leveled at Null in particular and pursuit of the bodycam footage in general, which he seemed to consider some sort of silver bullet but has never clarified since:


Two judges have not said to release it, what are you talking about? That being said, someone who files for the requests under a false name and has spent the past several weeks on the Internet talking about his actual purpose of the bodycam probably shouldn't go before the court and say it's for news-gathering purposes or public interest when it's clearly for private interests: a private interest of conducting a campaign of public shame. Courts don't like it when you lie. I don't know if Josh knows that or not.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it's not a game to me at all. It might be a game to Josh, and that's fine, and he can lie to the courts, and he can do whatever he's gonna do.
Click to expand...
[Timestamp 5:10]

There was some speculation at the time that he might have been referring to a name change not being official yet (which was easily disproven) or referring to another records request by a "Josiah Munoz" (which was obviously a troll having nothing to do with Null or Hardin), but now going through all the exhibits attached to Hardin's complaint, Nick might have been trying to insinuate that it was somehow improper for Hardin's May 23rd request to have been made in his individual capacity, when it was obvious from Hardin's May 28th request that he was by that time acting in a representative capacity on behalf of his client, just as he was in later filings requesting that his client be allowed to stream the omnibus hearing.

If that's all he's referring to, then and now, so what? At least the first of the records requests was explicitly in Hardin's own name, not a "false name," and he has the same constitutional, common law, and statutory rights that any other requestor would have, so he's not "lying" about whether his motivations stem from any past association with Null or the Farms and he is instead simply declining to harp on that topic because the pleadings were structured in a way that made it legally irrelevant. Nick's just acting butthurt that his original master plan of bombarding the judge with countless timestamps and screenshots making Null look like a meanie won't get anywhere anymore and he'll have to come up with a legal argument instead.


2. If that "real party in interest" argument isn't what he's alluding to, he might be projecting onto Hardin his annoyance at Null's public statements supposedly "lying" about two judges having ordered the sheriff to do anything. Those statements were forgivable as a layman's colloquial summary of what happened, but were not technically 100% accurate, since Department of Administration staff are not "judges" and their phone call to the sheriff with advice about an arguably analogous 2022 advisory opinion wasn't binding on the sheriff, and since Wentzell's May 2nd administrative order only governed the judicial branch's internal treatment of the "unredacted" MNDES exhibits that the Barneswalker stupidly placed in the judicial branch's possession, whereas Wentzell only referred offhand to the sheriff being a potential alternative source, which was pretty much the most he could say on that subject considering the oft-overlooked separation of powers issues involved here. That offhand reference to the sheriff wasn't necessary or even relevant to the narrow issue that was before Wentzell to decide that day, so his going off on that tangent likely signaled his strong preference that any broader public release should first go through redactions which the judicial branch was ill-equipped to do (and likely not allowed to do to exhibits anyway), which the sheriff's office has already said it is fully equipped to do for a fee, and which Hardin has already said he is prepared to pay for.

If that misunderstanding is what Nick is referring to, then all the whippets must have torched his reading comprehension because Hardin's filing described the Department of Administration's role and communications accurately, and he was close enough when paraphrasing that Wentzell's May 2nd order saying "requests can be made" from the sheriff implied that the footage was also "available" from the sheriff, albeit dependent on how requests shake out:

Available.webp
RequestsCanBeMade.webp
[L]

Other than those two possibilities, what else could even Nick's swiss-cheese wetbrain even remotely misconstrue as "lying" in this filing? Does he know something we don't?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Mexican Molotov Marauder, Anticipointment, Maraschino and 51 others
WhimsicalTrolli said:
Ralph, A malet who hasn't seen his daughter in 2 years, have supervised visits with his 4 year old son ever since he was born. Talking about how 5 children and 1 tested positive for the amount of regular usage shouldn't be removed.
Click to expand...
I'd be more surprised if he said she should be removed

What Ralph said tracks with his moral compass
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Peanut Butter Trails, Horrified Bystander, byuuWasTaken and 6 others
So Nick is basically trying to block the release by pretending Josh is too close to the case/has a personal vendetta against him and wants to publicly shame him? And this means that in this case the release of the footage wouldn't fall under 'public interest'?

Does that mean if we get a completely unrelated neutral party to do a request for the body-cam Rekieta wouldn't block it, can someone contact EWU or one of the other million YouTube channels that post body-cam footage every day.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Unhinged duck, Peanut Butter Trails, Yum Yum and 11 others
Captain Manning said:
He's worn tennis shoes with a suit to court. We found that out in 2019.

His fashion sense has always been crap.

And, mind you, my fashion sense isn't great. A least I can admit it though.
Click to expand...
He also wore shorts, if I’m not mistaken. He’s a walking fashion victim.
Grayback said:
Nick is angrily vagueposting again.
View attachment 7503839 (twitter / archive)
Once again, he can't actually refute anything. He has no contradictory evidence that he can point to, where X couldn't be true because of Y. He won't even specify which thing(s) Hardin is supposedly lying about.
All he has is "IT'S NAWT TRUUUUUUUUU!"
Click to expand...
He’s inching ever closer to calling Hardin a pedophile which I predicted a day or two back… Any day now.
Rudy Coleman said:
so what? i fart and shit my pants every day nigga? if anything this makes him more relatable that hes a based fart shitter
Click to expand...
IMG_3760.webp
Melty Butter said:
Oh hey! We got the whole pic. EVS sent it to Keanu. She's live right now and showed it.
View attachment 7505334
Heels confirmed.
Click to expand...
The short sleeve shirt plus shorts and a tie is such a good look, Nick. Please keep doing it. Oh and don’t forget the Hot Topic belt, that’s a real winner too 🥇.
WhimsicalTrolli said:
Ralph saying people want rackets dead. To be fair, yeah. Medicinally dosing your child with cocaine doesn't really help your case.
Nick wished death on people who did far less.
Click to expand...
That’s very rich coming from Ethan “why won’t you diiiiiie Medicare!” Ralph. The same rage pig who called the rage twig’s kids “a brood of retards”. He can’t claim the moral high ground on this, or anything really.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Maraschino, suspended animation, maguyver16 and 18 others
Dr Naomi Hunter said:
The short sleeve shirt plus shorts and a tie is such a good look, Nick. Please keep doing it. Oh and don’t forget the Hot Topic belt, that’s a real winner too 🥇.
Click to expand...
It’s just so trashy. Especially when you realize the color coordination between everyone in the group all while outside the home that was a fucking drug den of junkies and ignored kids. Idk shorts on a guy trying to be formal trigger me a bit. Linen cloth exists.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Peanut Butter Trails, often puzzled, St. Alia of the Knife and 6 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back