You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
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.
Aaron's never going to get a fair shake in any Minnesota court. He needs to move to a state not in the same Feminazi libtard shithole league as California, Oregon, Washington, New York etc.
I think he woud be better off in a place like Hayden Lake, or Coeur d'Alene Idaho.
Aaron's never going to get a fair shake in any Minnesota court. He needs to move to a state not in the same Feminazi libtard shithole league as California, Oregon, Washington, New York etc.
I think he woud be better off in a place like Hayden Lake, or Coeur d'Alene Idaho.
Aaron's cripplingly stupid life choices are catching up to him as you need to remember he can't just fuck off to a totally different state, he has kids from a previous engagement he cares about.
If he'd never done THAT, (learned some pullout game at least) then yeah he could and should've the second he broke off from the Qover.
Aaron's never going to get a fair shake in any Minnesota court. He needs to move to a state not in the same Feminazi libtard shithole league as California, Oregon, Washington, New York etc.
I think he woud be better off in a place like Hayden Lake, or Coeur d'Alene Idaho.
I'm not surprised. Nick's objective appears to have been to get April to string Aaron along for long enough to sell his house in his sole name and buy the second house in both of their names before having April divorce him.
Where I am they make the petitioner fill out the application for an order of protection them selves at the courthouse no matter what. I assume Aaron is going to show up at trial with his normal guy (that I think everyone is being too hard on).
Aaron's previous lawyer in all of the cases he was involved in recently was a guy called Casey Kolb who is apparently a personal friend. It was only with the most recent case that he went with the disastrous decision to retain Peterson instead.
Before Nick put out a bounty on Aaron's speech and streamed multiple times obsessing about Aaron, I agreed that Aaron's odds maybe weren't great for maintaining the hro. Now, I give it even odds.
The issue isn't so much maintaining the order but also whether the order implies a blanked restriction on mentioning Aaron in any capacity at all on any medium that some people in this thread think it does beyond simply preventing him from contacting Aaron. If it does, why did Aaron's orders specify that he couldn't mention the person online when they already included the same language as Nick's before?
It was the following week. Specifically Aaron said he was going to Nick's house on April 11. If you pay attention to how Aaron talks, this stream was basically confirmation that April had moved in with Nick and was the person sitting in the corner of Nick's streams (if you listen carefully, he seems to say that he was going to Nick's house by himself and April was already going to be there, which was what happened). The next day Nick cancelled his interview with Megan Fox while looking close to tears and staring at April sitting in the corner.
My recollection is that she asked the defense if they’d like to move forward with sentencing (after she chewed Aaron out) and the defense chose to postpone.
Yes, that's what I remembered as well. I don't recall any discussion of her refusing to accept the plea deal, though it was probably implicit or else why postpone?
I don't think it can be. Aaron thought he was going in to have a plea agreement rubber stamped. He wasn't going in for a trial. Changing the plea to not guilty has to be a whole reset of everything, I think.
The issue isn't so much maintaining the order but also whether the order implies a blanked restriction on mentioning Aaron in any capacity at all on any medium that some people in this thread think it does beyond simply preventing him from contacting Aaron. If it does, why did Aaron's orders specify that he couldn't mention the person online when they already included the same language as Nick's before?
I wasn't making the argument that the order, at present, precludes Nick from broadcasting or talking / posting about Aaron. It seems not to be in the order (some ambiguity in the MN laws aside, it's not in the order).
My argument was, a neutral party, being shown clips/streams of Nick's behavior, post-HRO, is going to be inclined to grant the HRO as permanent for the year requested, given Nick's behavior on stream, both on his own channel and with the heifers on PAS. (I'm in the camp that argues that a restriction on speech is probably unconstitutional, but Nick's continued behavior in this vein could open him up to torts.)
Nick is full of it. I'm Powergaming here, I have professional experience with Google Workspace: there is no way he saw Aaron’s Google history data locally without either (a) using Aaron’s credentials to start a new session, or (b) exploiting a pre-existing session to access Aaron’s confidential Google account.
This is brilliant, and explained in a way that I could understand. Thank you. It should also be part of a wider public discussion.
I fully understand why Meme Copium, Sean, Mindset, and PPP are exhausted by Nick (aren't we all?), but holy moly, the Dabbleverse is gaining ground every fucking day. They're not letting up for a single second; flooding the zone fairly effectively.
Meanwhile, you've just proven a federal crime in very plain English.
I fully understand why Meme Copium, Sean, Mindset, and PPP are exhausted by Nick (aren't we all?), but holy moly, the Dabbleverse is gaining ground every fucking day. They're not letting up for a single second; flooding the zone fairly effectively.
Gaining ground in what way? None of them have any real viewership and even if they flood the market with pro Nick propaganda it won't mean anything. Nick will never have a real audience again because any normal person who hears that he was even arrested and had a kid test positive will move on.
Gaining ground in what way? None of them have any real viewership and even if they flood the market with pro Nick propaganda it won't mean anything. Nick will never have a real audience again because any normal person who hears that he was even arrested and had a kid test positive will move on.
However, with respect to the bodycam kerfuffle specifically, the government is pretty clearly involved, no?
As I understand, that situation essentially boils down to a struggle between the public's right to know, and Nick's belief that the government should actively work to protect his privacy.
(And it which it warrants a reminder that he previously argued the opposite position in legal situations that did not involve him).
The crux of the "privacy" right in the body cam dispute is statutory in nature. Basically, as you said, the body-cam issue comes from a statutory balancing act between the public's right to know certain information and private actor's right to keep certain information private with the government acting as a middle man as well as protecting its own interests at the same time. Minnesota's statutory scheme is meant to balance these competing interests, which differs between the states, and is not the same as the constitutional right to privacy. Minnesota wrote laws to figure out how and when they would release footage captured by police, which while being informed by broad ideas of "privacy" are not the same as Griswold's specific type of privacy found in the Constitution.
It would not be Griswold privacy right because Griswold concerns government regulation of your "private" activities (in the specific case of Griswold, whether the government can forbid married couples from using contraceptives). Basically, Griswold operates on this idea that some things are so intimate and private that the government should not intrude on those decisions or activities. Through a confluence of the Fourth, Ninth,* and Fourteenth Amendments (primarily) the Constitution prohibits government intervention on those "private" activities. Cases that depend on Griswold include: Eisenstadt (allowing contraceptives for non-married couples too!), Lawrence (allowing you to have gay sex, if that's your thing), and of course, most controversially, Roe (permitting abortion, now overturned). Griswold answers when the government should be forbidden from regulating what you do in your private life because those activites are of special intimate significance not outweighed by the government's interest in regulating them.
Also, Nick has no principles outside of what he believes to immediately benefit him.
* The Ninth Amendment argubly has the most literal significance in this idea because it accounts for the idea that the Constitution is meant to be a non-exclusive list of rights and that the Constitution should not be construed in a manner meant to deny non-mentioned rights merely because they're not explicitly contained in the Constitution. So for example, in Griswold, merely because the Constitution does not specifically mention you have a right to have sex with your wife using contraceptives, it should not be construed to say that the Constitution does not include that right. The Ninth Amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights reflects the Framers' concern that the having a set list of rights would come with it the implication that the any unlisted rights would be handed over to the Federal government. The Constitution was not intended to be a definitive listing of all fundamental human rights.
Hopefully, whichever authority is handling this has already established sufficient probable cause to begin covert evidence collection well before now. Nick’s entire legal strategy is to act flippant and dismissive until he’s cornered, he’ll mock the seriousness of this crime right up until he’s facing charges, then suddenly flip to playing the victim once it’s time to lawyer up. To him, treating any grave allegations without formal charge is equal to admitting to the crime.
We’ve seen this pattern before: with his drug arrest, he taunted critics as “stupid incel prudes who can’t have fun” right up until the consequences caught up with him.
My argument was, a neutral party, being shown clips/streams of Nick's behavior, post-HRO, is going to be inclined to grant the HRO as permanent for the year requested, given Nick's behavior on stream, both on his own channel and with the heifers on PAS. (I'm in the camp that argues that a restriction on speech is probably unconstitutional, but Nick's continued behavior in this vein could open him up to torts.)
It just chaps my ass Nick can say all sorts of shit about Aaron with respect to Kayla, and Aaron is apparently forbidden to say anything in his defense because that would necessitate mentioning Kayla. If that's what we're gonna be stuck with, and is constitutional, I guess I have no choice but to support an effort by Aaron to similarly shut Nick up.
If all Aaron did was spout endless bullshit, I wouldn't maybe care as much, but Aaron is pretty clearly telling the truth in certain key areas. Like how exactly he took that picture of Kayla. It very definitely wasn't without her knowledge like Nick wants everybody to believe.
The government is working to protect Nick from being called out on his bullshit, just like they are working to shield Nick from people seeing his filthy crackhouse, him throwing a warrant on the ground, and wishing that a Sheriff's detective contracts Gonorrhea.
I realize this is probably more of a philosophical argument than a legal one, but I don't care. It rubs me the wrong way. The government is actively working to protect absolute scum here.
Hasn't this been talked to death already? aaron submitted all of this to the feds in his attempt to get a full investigation going into the cybercrime nick committed
That can be tricky, depending on Google's internal retention periods for that data and it matching up with the same retention periods for Nick's ISP.
However seeing that Google can provide authorities with data ranging like a fucking decade ago, I imagine their undisclosed retention period is insanely long.
Hasn't this been talked to death already? aaron submitted all of this to the feds in his attempt to get a full investigation going into the cybercrime nick committed
True, but it is also worth mentioning that even if the investigation went nowhere. Its highly relevant in Aaron's TRO. If the CFAA violation is real or not, the intent was to severely embarrass Aaron with private, sexually-related data.
That is a very bad look for a "co-victim" of Aaron's so-called sexual exploitation of his wife. The clear and obvious intent was to upset, insult and defame Aaron, its authenticity is irrelevant, the intent is the crime.
If I was Aaron, I would bring up how Nick continues to talk about it to this day, showing continuous efforts to embarrass him via (what appears to be) confidential data. I would be very interested in seeing how Barnswalker explains that one away.
The coloration and extension was a big tell to me to believe Aaron's claims. If you import an existing Chrome profile (e.g., by logging into your Google account and enabling sync), Chrome will pull in your bookmarks, extensions, and theme, which can change the look of the browser window (including toolbar colour and new tab page styling).
IIRC on STMS he confirmed that was the color of his Google browser profile.
