Alright law type people.....question to yall please....
Aaron has mentioned in both HROs about the unauthorized access. Will this be addressed at the hearing? Seems like it would be and Nick would have to respond that it is not true and Aaron could respond with the criminal complaint/evidence information. Or maybe even add it to the MENDES(or whatever it is) system and make them exhibits.
It's all up in the air. HROs are civil actions, not criminal. However, a violation of an HRO can result in criminal charges, not just contempt. The burden of proof is “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the petitioner must show it's more likely than not that harassment occurred.
Can Aaron successfully argue that it’s
likely Nick Rekieta illegally accessed his email account?
Probably. Under the HRO standard, he doesn’t
need to prove it
beyond a reasonable doubt. If he can present circumstantial evidence suggesting access or attempts to access, such as unusual logins or references to private emails, the court might find that sufficient. Nick would not be required to prove a negative, but he would need to raise reasonable doubt or offer a plausible alternative explanation.
If the CFAA allegations are entirely false, is it
also plausible that Nick and Melton
fabricated or
exaggerated them to cause emotional distress?
Yes. The court can consider a pattern of targeted behavior, including false accusations, doxing, or humiliation, as harassment under Minnesota law.
The HRO against Melton appears stronger. He's fucked with Aaron for years, digging up or fabricating documents intended to cause distress, making sexualized comments about Aaron’s child, and broadcasting intimate photos of Aaron and his private correspondence to an online audience. Even if no actual hacking occurred, the intent to humiliate or emotionally harm Aaron is central to HRO claims.
Aaron may also benefit from a kind of home court advantage. Minnesota’s privacy and anti-harassment statutes could support his argument that the respondents’ actions go beyond criticism and constitute targeted digital harassment. Claims of chilling free speech will likely fall flat if the speech involves illegally obtaining / fabricated confidential data, sexual remarks about children, or repeated personal attacks designed to provoke a breakdown.
I only ask that Aaron hasn't half-assed this. He needs to sit down and carefully record, timestamp and lay out everything. These cites for
@elb and
@Third World Aristocrat might pass the smell test for ex parte TRO, but if he wants the HRO to stick, he needs direct sources / mirrors. Timestamps from original content (or from CogCity lmao)
Aaron is their bread and butter, both Nick and Melton aren't fucking around.