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.

[he who has thus come/gone]

Nick has clearly violated the court order by airing a four-hour livestream about Aaron just hours after being explicitly instructed not to mention him online.
It seems Nick’s obsession with his own “free speech” has blinded him to the plain language of the court’s directive.
This could cause serious legal repercussions for Nick, as he’s openly disregarded the court’s authority. This week could be very interesting.

Kandiyohi County is in Rekieta's pocket. He gets away with coking up his kid, allegedly choke slamming his son, probably driving under the influence, not paying his tickets, and having the prosecutor illicitly cover up evidence from his case. The only way he will ever be held to account is if people start donating to the current sheriff's opponent in the next election or writing woke op-eds about the benefits of white privilege and wealth in rural Minnesota in the Minnesota Star Tribune.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

Nick has clearly violated the court order by airing a four-hour livestream about Aaron just hours after being explicitly instructed not to mention him online.

I think what happened was worse than what you describe. Nick created a talking effigy of Aaron (or, to be more precise, had someone create it for him, because he's an untalented hack) and argued with it for four hours.

 

[Vibralldo]

Nick has clearly violated the court order by airing a four-hour livestream about Aaron just hours after being explicitly instructed not to mention him online.
It seems Nick’s obsession with his own “free speech” has blinded him to the plain language of the court’s directive.
This could cause serious legal repercussions for Nick, as he’s openly disregarded the court’s authority. This week could be very interesting.

Nick will cry that Aaron's harassing Kayla for a couple offhand references and should be sent to jail and sued out of his house and then start a 4 hour livestream about Aaron

Nick's free speech stuff is like the rest of his libertarian ideology:

Nick just wants to satiate his id

 

[Sneed Force One]

Small amusing note, Nick is double-banned from owning firearms until the expiry or dismissal of this HRO.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

Don't be silly, he had to know it would all end up here sooner or later.

Both cell phones. Outstanding. The milk must flow.

 

[Dude Snakes]

I think what happened was worse than what you describe. Nick created a talking effigy of Aaron (or, to be more precise, had someone create it for him, because he's an untalented hack) and argued with it for four hours.

My God the depth of his insanity is frightening.

 

[Chode]

Don't be silly, he had to know it would all end up here sooner or later.

Thank you for getting this.

So he confirms the search history is real, meaning he read this thread and missed the feeling on his right hand on "blue."

"Fuck my wife or kill yourself" is a little more aggressive than your average cuck.

And the main claims. Aaron didn't bungle this and made sure to outline the death threats and the retaliatory nature of them. Nick will argue about Aaron's non-response across the last year, but as long as Aaron clarifies the escalation that he's largely outlined in his initial compliant I think the order should stick.

Who the hell knows what that means when it comes to anything happening.

 

[Oxyjen]

using personal info without consent to invite, encourage, or solicit a third party to engage in a sexual act with the victim

Can someone break this one down for me, sorry to be the dumbass.

 

[Dude Snakes]

I hope Sean of Potentially Criminal covers this. God I want this prick to suffer.

 

[Swole McPole]

"Fuck my wife or kill yourself" is a little more aggressive than your average cuck.

I initially thought that mark was a caret, indicating an insertion, so the sentence was intended to read "He made a message to me on the app Signal, telling me to kill myself with him because I refused to come over to his house to continue swinging."

If he couldn't have gay sex with Aaron, he was suggesting a suicide pact. "If our love shall not be, let us end it together."

Whatever way you look at it, this Restraining Order looks to me to be Another Win for the Toe.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

Forgive my ignorance but does the term Toe come from Aaron using his Toe during sex?

If you're really asking, it comes from Imholte's show called Steel Toe Radio or something. Referencing a kind of blue collar safety boot never worn by anyone involved in any of this.

 

[Sneed Force One]

Its kinda ambiguous if Nick has been instructed not to mention Aaron online or if it is allowed.

In Aaron's request to the court, he includes "and no online mentions".

Senior District Judge Ellen Maas found that the respondent did harass the applicant via social media (Aaron is handed a win by a woman, pigs do indeed fly).

IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Maas that the respondent shall have no direct or indirect contact with petitioner.

Judge Maas didn’t explicitly include Aaron’s request for a no-online-mention clause in her formal orders, and that if it is not mentioned, it is denied.
However, the surrounding directives can reasonably be interpreted as effectively imposing that restriction. Ultimately, it will take experienced legal minds to determine whether Nick’s actions constitute a clear violation.

Just hours after receiving the court order, Nick went online and discussed Aaron on the same social media platforms he previously used to harass him. He then hosted a four-hour livestream in which he agreed that Aaron should die. Not a great way to start a harrassment defence, is it Nick?

 

[Chode]

Can someone break this one down for me, sorry to be the dumbass.

Transcribed:

Respondent used the victim's personal information, without consent to invite, encourage, or solicit a third party to engage in a sexual act with the victim as follows:
Data (date range) : 04-11-24 to 11-10-24
[next page]
The respondent accessed my google account without authorization, divulged search histories, and financial information on his X account x.com/rekietalaw if respondent deletes the tweets, I have them archived.

I assume he thought the sexual nature of his search history meant he should mention it under this section.

 

[Potentially Cat Mom]

Don't be silly, he had to know it would all end up here sooner or later.

Thank you!!!

 

[TherapyMan]

Yeah, I think you are right. I think Aaron asked for no online mentions, but it doesn't seem to be part of the order. The petition part and the order part can often be two different things.

The form order fucking sucks in terms of draftmanship, and I don't blame anyone for being confused. I, too, am confused.

This section, to me, reads like the unchecked box in (a) means that the order does not extend to petitioner's minor children or person subject to guardianship. In other words, the third check-box will only be marked if the order extends to minor children or a person subject to guardianship. The subsequent language, "including any visits to or phone calls to the protected persons . . ." I believe was intended to explain what "direct" and "indirect contact" means by providing illustrative examples, and the checkbox does not affect that language.

But because "including" is on the same line as the checkbox, everyone is confused because it appears as if the checkbox applies to the whole paragraph. I don't believe that's how it's meant to be read. I could just as easily be wrong, but I doubt that the RO fails to cover "threats of assault behavior to the protected person(s)," for instance.

 

[john marston]

Well, now that Nick isn't legally allowed to talk about how former love, Aaron Imholte, I don't see any reason for Mapton and the Diddleverse to keep him around. Is this start of the snakening?

Edit: I really need to get into the habit of proof reading my own posts before I post them

 

[Fortyone]

View attachment 7580629
And just like that, Aaron Imholte nukes most of Nick Rekieta's content.

Being obsessed with his ex-boyfriend/bull was what kept nick going after he had to give up his cocaine and liquor. How the fuck is he going to keep going without any of the above?

 

[Chazzed Up]

Everyone thought this all would end with Nick and Kayla in divorce court but here we are, with Nick and Aaron in divorce court...

 

[Sneed Force One]

[ X / Archive ]
Despite being unambiguously told by the court not to indirectly contact Aaron, Nick Rekieta via his X.com @RekietaLaw account continues to make comments about him in tweet chains Aaron is tagged, which would cause Nick to appear in his notifications.

 

[Captain Manning]

Judge Maas didn’t explicitly include Aaron’s request for a no-online-mention clause in her formal orders. However, the surrounding directives can reasonably be interpreted as effectively imposing that restriction. Ultimately, it will take experienced legal minds to determine whether Nick’s actions constitute a clear violation.

I don't think it does. With respect, I think you guys are jumping the gun on that. You can ask for anything you want in a petition, but it doesn't mean you're gonna get it. It also says all other requested relief not specifically covered in the order is denied.

But again, an @ on Twitter is more than just a mention, but also a form of contact. Aaron gets a notification (think Null, and his whole "don't @ me").

Put another way, if you view the order in the light most favorable to Nick (and not Aaron) it still seems like Nick has already violated this by @ing Aaron.

Nick violated the most basic bitch terms of a restraining order. Which is that you are not supposed to contact the petitioner at all. Forget the whole "mentioning Aaron" thing for just a minute.