On one of meltons recent shows, he admits he and Nick have talked about nick’s goal is ending Aaron’s life.
Ya'll got a timestamp on that?
Do you remember which stream it was, or any specific phrases that were used? I wasn’t able to find it on filmot using the quotes you provided. These were the closest results I found:
"And if we know anything about Nick, he's vengeful and out to destroy Aaron. You know, people accused me of being out to destroy Aaron. I don't work around the clock or have fantasies about him being killed or like, I don't need to. Aaron's going to step in dog shit Monday. Aaron's going to step in dog shit Wednesday. Aaron's going to step in dog shit next month. It doesn't matter. Like Aaron will fuck Aaron. Self admitted. I don't have to come up with stuff."
View attachment 7588841
"Now again, Nick wishes death on Aaron. Nick wants allies. Nick wants people to be mad at Aaron."
View attachment 7588851
Thank you! Here is the clip:
"As mad as Nick is, I don't think he's in that frame of mind all week long. He—matter of fact, he's never mentioned once to me that he wants to harm Aaron. He wants Aaron dead, but he don't want to do it by his hand. And—and I'm pretty sure... well, I should shut my mouth. I shouldn't say confidential stuff. But I have a very, very good reason to believe that Nick will not be involved in hurting or killing or hunting down Aaron in any way. You'll just have to take my word for it.
Again, didn't—what was—what was [he] not going to jail for? You know, if all he wanted to do was stay out of jail to keep his family intact and restore his life to the balance that it had before, what good would going on killing Aaron and going to prison for that do? So, I mean, that's just stupid."
View attachment 7589149
While we're on the topic, here's a fourth time and fifth time that such comments were repeated on NLO, which were
mentioned earlier but not clipped at the time since it was still live without rewind:
Oh, Nick does want you to die. I don't think he's joking. I think if Nick could kill you secretly, he would.
[Timestamp 4:06:14]
Do I think for one minute that Nick is in love with Aaron, and misses Aaron? When he talks about Aaron, he's like, "I hope Aaron dies."
[Timestamp 3:10:15]
While at it, a sixth, seventh, and eighth popped up from poking around on Filmot further, all of which is stuff district judges just
love to hear:
Nick's not gonna stoop down to Aaron's levels and ruin his livelihood over this petty bullshit. Now, again, does Nick feel very personally about it? Yes. Is Nick very angry at Aaron and want him dead? Of course. We know this.
[Timestamp 49:35]
These are emotional responses, and again, Nick had it yesterday. Nick was losing control of his emotions yesterday. Nick was screaming. Nick wants people dead. Does he have that right? Absolutely. Is it a good look? It isn't.
[Timestamp 13:26]
MAPton: I think I asked you if you wanted him dead, and you were like, "oh god yes," as if you were jerking off.
Nick: Probably.
[Timestamp 1:49:43]
INB4 Nick shoves his own lawyer aside at the hearing to shout his own OBJECTION that all of the above are inadmissible hearsay because it's just MAPton talking on his show and he's not in court. Good luck with that, when MAPton is merely describing out-of-court statements by a party-opponent that should be deemed
non-hearsay by rule before even getting into any possible exceptions. Even better, the harassment context in particular is one where MAPton's descriptions of the out-of-court statements wouldn't even be offered to show the truth of the statements themselves (i.e. to prove whether Nick really wanted Aaron dead, which is irrelevant), and instead would only be offered to show the statements' effect on the listener (i.e. to prove whether an objectively reasonable person in Aaron's shoes would consider his safety, security, or privacy substantially affected), which makes MAPton's descriptions of out-of-court statements non-hearsay
by definition to begin with:
Johnson v. Luppino, No. A05-1557 (Minn. App. 2006)
And even better, MAPton's descriptions of Nick's out-of-court statements are practically adopted by Nick anyway, when he didn't deny what was said and just admitted that it
"probably" was said. To any ordinary listener not using whatever idiosyncratic definition Nick will surely make up to wiggle out of his own words, "probably" would lead one to think "more likely than not." Guess what else will mean "more likely than not" in the HRO context:
Latham v. Latham, No. A11-1085 (Minn. App. 2012)
Way to hand over your entire defense on a silver platter by blurting out just one impulsive word, retard. Or are we to believe that after all of the above clips are properly admitted, a judge that deals with this sort of trailer trash lunacy every day is just not going to take any of it seriously?
