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.

[AnOminous]

Well, we don't know that yet given that the HRO just happened. Thus far, Nick is not handling it very well. The situation could rapidly deteriorate for him. Just as Nick went bitching to the Stern's County prosecutor repeatedly, Aaron could now be doing the same to KandyAss County Sheriff.

The HRO was granted by Stearns.

 

[Captain Manning]

WTF did I just read? The balldowashers continue to disturb me with their stupidity.

You have to be either braindead or immoral to support Nick now. It's just one of things you have to accept. I accepted it soon after the CPS report dropped. Think of it as separating the wheat from the chaff.

The HRO was granted by Stearns.

Isn't it enforceable state-wide though?

But fine... Aaron goes complaining to the Stern's County Sheriff. That might even be more effective, if you are one of the people that believes the Kandyland County Sheriff is treating Nick with kid gloves.

Either way, my point is, it's early. Let's see what happens. If this goes on for weeks though, it would just further cement my belief Minnesota is dogshit. Something I already believe.

 

[AnOminous]

Isn't it enforceable state-wide though?

Yes. ROs generally are. It probably has language explicitly stating that.

But fine... Aaron goes complaining to the Stern's County Sheriff. That might even be more effective, if you are one of the people that believes the Kandyland County Sheriff is treating Nick with kid gloves.

Or the state boys, who might be of a level of professionalism higher than the town clowns.

 

[DemsBNutz]

View attachment 7573098

Lakeville High School Class of 2000, Wholesome Rekieta

Spoiler: Drexel jumpscare

View attachment 7573129

Spoiler: WE WUZ KANGZ N SHEET

View attachment 7573142View attachment 7573143

Do I spy a butt chin???? Oooo art project idea... DAMM...... Same hair style.... This is going to be fun..

 

[Captain Manning]

Or the state boys, who might be of a level of professionalism higher than the town clowns.

Minnesota State Trooper Joshua Monson. Who both gave Nick a ticket, AND participated in the raid.

Don't tell me God doesn't have a sense of humor.

 

[AltisticRight]

If only Nick had been busy in his free time growing sunflowers

He has been growing sunflowers.
Aaron Imholte turned his chrysanthemum flower into a sunflower.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Some interesting cites for the real lawyers to ponder:

Twitter mentions (@'s) are grounds for HRO:

Polinsky also produced evidence that, using the blog’s Twitter account, Bolton had sent her a Twitter “@mention” a total of eight times. An expert witness testified that the “@mentions” would result in notifications on her phone and that the primary purpose of sending an “@mention” on Twitter “is to get somebody’s attention . . . to send them a notification and let them know about [a] tweet.” At some point, Polinsky blocked Bolton from her Twitter account.

[...]

Specifically, the district court found that Bolton’s “@mentions” of Polinsky on Twitter, as well as his sending the package to the hotel, constituted harassing acts.

[...]

[2] Because the HRO statute does not include a standard of proof, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies to the decision to grant an HRO. SeeMinn. Stat. § 609.748 (not identifying a standard of proof for HROs); State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., 500 N.W.2d 788, 790 (Minn. 1993) (stating that statutory silence regarding a standard of proof “is regarded as a signal that the legislature intended the preponderance of the evidence standard” to apply). A preponderance of the evidence means a greater weight of the evidence, or that a claim is more likely true than not. State v. Maley, 714 N.W.2d 708, 712 (Minn. App. 2006).

[...]

The district court found that the use of the “@mentions” was deliberate contact with Polinsky that was unwanted and had a substantial adverse effect on her security. We agree with this reasoning and conclude that Bolton’s Twitter “@mentions” of Polinsky satisfy the statutory definition of harassment. See Minn. Stat. §649.748, subd. 1(a)(1).

[...]

The district court here, however, did not base its HRO findings on Bolton’s “following” Polinsky on Twitter, but rather on his conduct of making “@mentions” of her on Twitter, which directly contacted her on her phone.

SOURCE

SCOTUS case on harassment by mail and scope of statute as applied to Twitter:

Nearly all of the tweets “mentioned” M.B. by including his Twitter username in the tweet.[1] A.J.B.’s purpose was to elicit a negative response. Essentially all of the tweets posted by A.J.B. and directed at M.B. contained cruel and egregious insults. One tweet contained a checkerboard of images with M.B.’s face and a caption reading, “Click the Autistic Child.” Several tweets encouraged M.B. to commit suicide, encouraged M.B. to try a new cologne called “Anthrax,” and suggested that M.B. kill himself by drinking bleach. Still other tweets referred to M.B. as a homosexual and used homophobic language, insults, and slurs, and called for the death penalty for gay individuals. Others insulted M.B.’s language skills, social skills, handwriting, personal interests, and involvement at school, and implied that his parents did not want him to be born. Put simply, over the course of two to three hours, A.J.B. dispatched an unrelenting torrent of cruel tweets at M.B...


[1] Twitter users can tweet “at” another user (also called “mentions”) by putting the other person’s username in the content portion of a tweet. The “mentioned” user receives a notification that the user has been mentioned. A.J.B. did not send any Twitter “direct messages” to M.B. A direct message is a private communication between two Twitter users.'

Because the surviving statute is therefore not substantially overbroad, we conclude that the State may still constitutionally
prosecute a person for mailing or delivering a letter, telegram, or package with the intent to abuse the recipient.

SOURCE

The statute sub-section

(c) A person commits harassment under this section if the person:

(1) directly or indirectly, or through third parties, manifests a purpose or intent to injure the person, property, or rights of another by the commission of an unlawful act;

(2) follows, monitors, or pursues another, whether in person or through any available technological or other means;

(3) returns to the property of another if the actor is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with authority to consent;

(4) repeatedly makes telephone calls, sends text messages, or induces a victim to make telephone calls to the actor, whether or not conversation ensues;

(5) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring;

(6) repeatedly mails or delivers or causes the delivery by any means, including electronically, of letters, telegrams, messages, packages, through assistive devices for people with vision impairments or hearing loss, or any communication made through any available technologies or other objects;

SOURCE

Apparently you do not even need to actually directly mention them to be harassing:

Johnson v. Arlotta, No. A11-630, 2011 WL 6141651, at *1(Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2011) (upholding a Harassment Restraining Order barring harassing online speech not aimed directly at the victim because, under Minnesota precedent, the Constitution does not protect harassing speech); Best v. Marino, 404P.3d 450, 463 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017) (upholding, against First Amendment and vagueness challenges, a conviction under an order that restrained speech that would cause the petitioner severe emotional distress); A.S.R. v. A.K.A., 84 N.E.3d1276, 1278 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017) (affirming a harassment prevention order against a challenge that the order penalized constitutionally protected speech).

(Emphasis mine)
SOURCE

 

[Fortyone]

the best part of the aaron situation is I, a retard no-name, as well as all of you lovely anonymous people, are not under the boot of the government and are able to freely discuss Our Wife, and in fact we are able to discuss her with a larger collective audience than the one that watches the STMS. Aaron could hang himself literally right now and he'd make no serious dent in the total number of people that are allowed to call Our Wife a degenerate pill-popping whore.

Whats even better is that The Skeleton Man cannot swing a bat large enough at our collective beehive to bother us as we continue to create the honey that is calling him a degenerate sex pest and his wife a slatternly whore. If he reads this, then I hope he takes a !

Aaron played his part like how a worker bee plays it's part as a resource gatherer or meatshield if a hornet tries to break into a hive. Once he's served his purpose he's not really of any further use he gets thrown out of the hive. Same thing will happen to Nick once MAPton considers him used up, even though Nick thinks MAPton is his best friend.

Honestly I hate MAPton, listening to him is like hearing nails on a fucking chalk board and I'll be happy to never hear him again once he disposes of Nick, but if he dumps Nick's dirty laundry and shits on him I might like him a bit more.

 

[Vibralldo]

Some interesting cites for the real lawyers to ponder:

So, Nick broke the order and the only thing that'll decide if he suffers consequences is if Aaron's lawyer gives a shit and is competent

 

[AnOminous]

Honestly I hate MAPton, listening to him is like hearing nails on a fucking chalk board and I'll be happy to never hear him again once he disposes of Nick, but if he dumps Nick's dirty laundry and shits on him I might like him a bit more.

I hope he gets raped and murdered in prison.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

So, Nick broke the order and the only thing that'll decide if he suffers consequences is if Aaron's lawyer gives a shit and is competent

If Peterson is still his lawyer, he’s screwed.

 

[Captain Manning]

Some interesting cites for the real lawyers to ponder:

*Snip*

Yeah, I would certainly think an @ on Twitter is a direct contact. Unlike Barnes, I don't consider the Internet some ethereal space untouchable by the plain language of various laws (yes Robert, you CAN get a search warrant from watching a livestream).

Nick is fucking retarded. He's got the most basic bitch conditions in that HRO, and he's already violating them. At this point you don't even need to ponder Aaron getting an expanded order that prohibits Nick even mentioning Aaron (ala Aaron's conditions concerning Kayla) in order to see Nick fuck it all up. He's already fucked it up.

Honestly I hate MAPton, listening to him is like hearing nails on a fucking chalk board and I'll be happy to never hear him again once he disposes of Nick, but if he dumps Nick's dirty laundry and shits on him I might like him a bit more.

I've said that if MAPton dumps on Nick he should be offered a blindfold and the chance to smoke a cigarette before he's put against the wall. I think that's fair.

 

[Soapmore]

If Peterson is still his lawyer, he’s screwed.

It's not just up to Aaron's lawyer, Aaron can drive him that direction if he wants. People urge their lawyers to do things all the time, often against their lawyer's advice.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

Honestly I hate MAPton, listening to him is like hearing nails on a fucking chalk board and I'll be happy to never hear him again once he disposes of Nick, but if he dumps Nick's dirty laundry and shits on him I might like him a bit more.

I wish him a woodchipper treatment, same as for all pedos. If he drops dirt on Nick, head first, if not - legs first.

 

[Vibralldo]

If Peterson is still his lawyer, he’s screwed.

It really seems like a slam dunk. If Peterson can't show Nick's blatant violations to the court then he's a worse lawyer than Nick.

 

[Soapmore]

It really seems like a slam dunk. If Peterson can't show Nick's blatant violations to the court then he's a worse lawyer than Nick.

Is my experience atypical? I've created an entire response and exhibits for a motion, the paralegal cleaned it up and formatted it, and attorney submitted. Is that unusual? Or do people just throw money at their lawyer and hope?

As I understand it the attorney is the expert at process not necessarily subject matter. I'm assuming at the very least the throw-money types will explain something that is arcane to the lawyer/paralegal so they understand the situation and know how to craft the legal position and not fuck it all up.

ETA: My point being, if I had an attorney who fucked me on something procedural, his fault. If he fucks me because I didn't make him understand the situation, my fault. Is this legit?

 

[RotPockets]

Nick is not handling it very well. The situation could rapidly deteriorate for him.

It’s a very safe bet that he didn’t sleep last night, now all of his actions are being lauded by sleep deprivation demons.

 

[Oxyjen]

I like the theory that Nick wants to escape his domestic life so bad he's breaking laws and trying to intentionally get arrested, but Kandy Yoshi county is either too stupid or too corrupt to send him to jail, it's very funny.

I think it’s a flex, that he can do whatever he likes with impunity, because the Zooluminati will always protect the golden failson.


As for Aaron, clearly the RO is a good start, and if he got it himself that shows initiative. The next step should be to fire his lawyer and make legal moves based purely on the collective advice of this thread. By the end of the year he could be driving a Rustang and banging a single mom of five on the side.

 

[Vibralldo]

https://x.com/RekietaLaw/status/1939414876914671903

https://archive.is/GOttk

Nick CONTINUING to interact with people discussing Aaron

 

[RotPockets]

Nick CONTINUING to interact with people discussing Aaron

“Nick CONTINUING to interact with people discussing Aaron AI.”

This nigger has no friends.