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 22.0%
  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.4%
  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 83 29.0%
  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 41 14.3%
  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 95 33.2%

  • Total voters
    286
Screenshot 2025-06-17 at 11.41.49 AM.webp
"if only you knew how much coke i've really done"
 
I might be wrong, but I am not sure if just flat out wrong or only slightly retarded wrong. @AnOminous @waffle @Potentially Criminal would likely be able to correct me.
I believe that acting without allowing someone whose rights were affected to respond would constitute a sufficient denial of due process to guarantee plenary (de novo) review, that is, the appeals court would be forced to try the issue itself since it had never been tried.

I'm not sure if that was cured by allowing a "limited intervention," in SJW's words, on that specific issue. In any event, it's still an issue of law, since the actual facts are fairly cut and dried (so still de novo). The only real factual dispute is whether designated them as public record was a mistake, a rather implausible claim considering the issue had been ruled on by SJW before finding them public record and making them available on a limited basis with absolutely no reference to any so-called "mistake."

The appeals court could find that it would be public regardless of whether or not it was a "mistake" and avoid the factual issue. If it actually is relevant, though, and would be public if deliberately made a public record and not if it was a "mistake," there's a bit of a quandary since usually an appeals court would remand for a factual determination, but in this case, that would be clearly futile.
 
Last edited:
The worst thing Nick could do at this point is attempt a defemation case against Mama K. Not only would this open up avenues for her to introduce the bodycam for her defense, but if the County refused to produce the bodycam for her, she could then sue them for costs i f she lost the defamation suit.

In other words, the more Nick runs his mouth about defamation, the more likely the County courts will not delete the footage to cover their own asses.

If Nick launched a defamation case, he would not only inevitably make the bodycam footage a public record, but also be almost inevitably hit with anti-SLAPP result in such a case.
 
Someone Owes Nick 6K
In this clip below, I feel like he might be implying that he wants to sue Josh. Could be his salty and defiant reaction to the chat.
Okay, I'm only interpreting this based on the clips you shared. But Rekieta mentions this $6,000 amount twice. First, he refers to how the frivolous nature of the lawsuit entitles him to $6,000. Then, in a second instance, he again discusses the "frivolous lawsuit" that has been filed, indicating that he expects to incur attorney fees for this matter, and again mentions the $6,000 figure.

He also stated in another one of your clips that the next step is intervening in Mr. Harding's lawsuit against the State. His interpretation is that he qualifies as an interested party who should have been notified and included in the proceedings.

So, either Rekieta believes that the effort he's already expended to "defend his privacy" in the criminal case is worth $6,000 and intends to respond accordingly, or he believes that his involvement in this new lawsuit is worth at least $6,000, and he plans to fight and potentially countersue Harding over it.

In summary, Rekieta appears to believe that his current criminal case, combined with the ongoing civil case involving Montagraph, isn't enough. He must also take legal action against the State, Aaron Imholte, and now @Null / Harding.

And some people think Rekieta is a cow without any lols to give, huh...
 
Yep. Nick regularly says "sure, I do cocaine and wife swap, but so does everyone else, and yet I'm the only one getting punished for it!" so it isn't just for the bullying, Nick thinks EVERY negative trait he has is common and he's being singled out because he was briefly popular on YouTube.
This is why I think Nick is a perfect example of why first time offenders don't deserve defacto light sentences. Nick is worse than remorseless, Nick views himself as the victim of his own crimes. He seems to see being caught with a dirty house with cocaine, loose guns and unsupervised kids as an injustice committed upon him. He talks on and on about how he had fun, without an ounce of concern for his kids.

Someone mentioned a while back that ODD is a child's affliction and in adults it's sociopath, and I think that might be what Nick is, a formerly high functioning sociopath. When his kid tested positive for cocaine, he didn't take responsibility, he denied it, tries to bury it, and paint himself as the victim by suggesting some kind of conspiracy. He should've had the book thrown at him.

I think you're right on him assuming everyone is like him. He described Redo of Healer, an anime about sadistic child rape, as "What every person thinks of when they're unchecked, and you get checked by reality. But it is the fantasy, I can go back and fuck over everybody who ruined me." Watch out Josh, Nick might be fantasizing about raping you as a kid right now :story: .
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I think that Nick showed some people Null’s old blockland forum posts and has been using that to paint everyone here as pedophiles.
The Blockland forum posts don't show that. It was the fabricated irc log.
Nitrous is something you inhale through your mouth right? Or am I misthinking (as a myopic non-junkie) and it can be/is inhaled in the nose?
To the extent dentists still use it, it's via a mask with nasal plugs, and oxygen is simultaneously administered. As dope fiends use it, though, it's mostly oral.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'm only interpreting this based on the clips you shared. But Rekieta mentions this $6,000 amount twice. First, he refers to how the frivolous nature of the lawsuit entitles him to $6,000. Then, in a second instance, he again discusses the "frivolous lawsuit" that has been filed, indicating that he expects to incur attorney fees for this matter, and again mentions the $6,000 figure.

He also stated in another one of your clips that the next step is intervening in Mr. Harding's lawsuit against the State. His interpretation is that he qualifies as an interested party who should have been notified and included in the proceedings.

So, either Rekieta believes that the effort he's already expended to "defend his privacy" in the criminal case is worth $6,000 and intends to respond accordingly, or he believes that his involvement in this new lawsuit is worth at least $6,000, and he plans to fight and potentially countersue Harding over it.

In summary, Rekieta appears to believe that his current criminal case, combined with the ongoing civil case involving Montagraph, isn't enough. He must also take legal action against the State, Aaron Imholte, and now @Null / Harding.

And some people think Rekieta is a cow without any lols to give, huh...
Maybe he's $6k behind on his mortgage, car payments, etc

$6k is a VERY specific amount
 
Okay, I'm only interpreting this based on the clips you shared. But Rekieta mentions this $6,000 amount twice. First, he refers to how the frivolous nature of the lawsuit entitles him to $6,000. Then, in a second instance, he again discusses the "frivolous lawsuit" that has been filed, indicating that he expects to incur attorney fees for this matter, and again mentions the $6,000 figure.

He also stated in another one of your clips that the next step is intervening in Mr. Harding's lawsuit against the State. His interpretation is that he qualifies as an interested party who should have been notified and included in the proceedings.

So, either Rekieta believes that the effort he's already expended to "defend his privacy" in the criminal case is worth $6,000 and intends to respond accordingly, or he believes that his involvement in this new lawsuit is worth at least $6,000, and he plans to fight and potentially countersue Harding over it.

In summary, Rekieta appears to believe that his current criminal case, combined with the ongoing civil case involving Montagraph, isn't enough. He must also take legal action against the State, Aaron Imholte, and now @Null / Harding.

And some people think Rekieta is a cow without any lols to give, huh...
It's likely a reference to the money Null raised to pay for the release of the bodycam footage or what was being offered to April for the release - think the number was around 6k for either of those (I'd need to go back and check). It very much seems like a petty "you lost the dare Null, you owe me" kinda jab. Keeping with Nicks propensity for vague faggotry & brainrot, he could very well feel entitled to that money for the trouble he perceives it as having caused him.
 
Last edited:
I believe that acting without allowing someone whose rights were affected to respond would constitute a sufficient denial of due process to guarantee plenary (de novo) review, that is, the appeals court would be forced to try the issue itself since it had never been tried.

I'm not sure if that was cured by allowing a "limited intervention," in SJW's words, on that specific issue. In any event, it's still an issue of law, since the actual facts are fairly cut and dried. The only real factual dispute is whether designated them as public record was a mistake, a rather implausible claim considering the issue had been ruled on by SJW before finding them public record and making them available on a limited basis with absolutely no reference to any so-called "mistake."
How can there be a mistake when frank white the lawyer (never to be confused with frank white king of NY) asked for it to be introduced into evidence himself there is no mistake as the defense intended to use malfeasance on behalf of law enforcement to exonerate the unjustly arrested Nicholas " Martin Luther King Jr" Rekieta. You cannot reverse the motion on record to exclude the evidence because Nick is already a victim of the Minnesota corrupt police (just like George Floyd RIP BIG FLOYD)
 
Nitrous is something you inhale through your mouth right? Or am I misthinking (as a myopic non-junkie) and it can be/is inhaled in the nose?

Or is he just that much of a pathetic junkie that he's inhaling it through his nose even though there's no benefit?
Likely just vasodilation. Nitrous oxide (N2O) induces cyclic GMP to relax muscles. It lowers blood pressure in one of its legitimate uses. Basically there’s more blood flowing in his nose. It’s why viagra (inhibits an enzyme that breaks down cGMP) helps you get a boner, more blood flowing there.

Vasodilation is also why alcoholics appear flush. The pathway is different, but it’s believed it might have to do with releasing nitric oxide (NO), but alcohol can also vasoconstrict some organs. It depends on how much you drink. Everything is a poison, just depends on the quantity.

Seriously though, how shit is Nick’s blood pressure? He’s gonna have pulmonary and cardiac issues in a few years.
 
It's more likely a reference to the money Null raised to pay for the release of the bodycam footage or what was being offered to April for the release - think the number was around 6k for either of those (I'd need to go back and check). it very much seems like a "you lost the dare Null, you owe me" me kinda jab.
That doesn't make any sense (so probably it's what he meant). That wasn't a dare, it was an offer.
Nick's Mandatory 80 Hour Community Service Countdown:
Nick claimed he had the full five years to do it. Still, it's stupid not to have done it instead of having his fake "job" where he begs for money while huffing nitrous. It would look good when they're deciding whether or not to throw him in jail for 28 more days.
 
I haven't found the clip yet, but I'm pretty confident that I remember Nick early on saying he wished he could make the bodycam public to prove people wrong. Wouldn't that help the idea that even Nick wanted the video public, in the public his own interest?
I recall that he was considering showing brief edits, along with screencaps of the LEO touching his daughter's hair to supposedly explain the coke result. (Funny and weird that he hasn't shared those screencaps.)

He would likely get huge viewership if he showed the bodycam (or parts of it). He knows that.

As he said last night, he doesn't personally care if it's shown, but it's someone else ( * cough * Kayla) who he is "protecting". Then he uses his kids as shields. (As if anyone would blame his kids for any of this.)
 
Back