💀 Horrorcow Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta / "u/Early-Leopard-8351" - Polysubstance abuser, child doser, dog killer. "Lawtube pope" turned zesty Dabbleverse Redditor streamer. Swinger "whitebread ass nigga" who snuffs animals and visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold. Still not over his ex Aaron. Wife's bod worth $50.

Luna's expiration date is?

  • <1 year

    Votes: 155 22.7%

  • Around 2 years

    Votes: 275 40.2%

  • 3-5 years

    Votes: 92 13.5%

  • As long as a pug lives, Karen farmer.

    Votes: 162 23.7%
  • Total voters
    684
RaptInPlastic said:
PO won't do it because she sees her job as quote making probation as easy as possible for Rekieta unquote but boy oh boy would this ever be the funniest day ever for a drug test. Fish in a barrel.
Click to expand...
1765108383939.png
Rest assured, Nick and Kayla Rekieta are fully capable of a drug-assisted run til 10PM Sunday night with a combination of The Doctor™ Monster Energy Drink and Modafinil.
Steve Seagull said:
Nick: "(...) Shut up! You're a nobody online like everybody else, but you're even more of a nobody. That's legal advice, baby. Take it in vain."

"I am giving 100% legal advice for all my clients, and this is protected by attorney-client privilege. And the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners, they actually approved and demanded that I say this specifically. That's what happened. (...) They've got this conundrum right now, some dork is telling them that I'm holding myself out as a lawyer representing clients, because I say, hey, I'm Nick Rekieta of Rekieta Law, a small law firm in central Minnesota. Those are all true statements, right? Nick Rekieta of Rekieta Law. And I am a lawyer. I'm not currently licensed to practice in Minnesota because my license is suspended, but I am a licensed attorney. I am licensed, but my license is suspended. I am not disbarred. My license is not gone or obliterated in any way. It's just on suspension. So they're telling me that they have a problem with me saying I'm a lawyer. I'm holding myself out as a lawyer. It's like, well, that's really interesting, because if I'm not a lawyer, if I'm not a lawyer, then the model rules of professional or Minnesota rules of professional conduct for lawyers cannot apply to me. It's like, if I'm not a lawyer, you can't hold me responsible under the rules. And if I am a lawyer, then I'm telling the truth. So if I'm bound by your rules, then I am a lawyer. I do not represent myself as licensed, but this is a weird artifact of how they do it. You can't apply the rules of professional conduct to non-lawyers. It doesn't work."
Click to expand...
"I'm Nick Rekieta of Rekieta Law (true), a small law firm in central Minnesota" (false, defunct entity).
"I'm not currently licensed to practice in Minnesota because my license is suspended, but I am a licensed attorney" (false, Nick is suspended from practice, therefore unlicenced).
"It's like, well, that's really interesting, because if I'm not a lawyer, if I'm not a lawyer, then the model rules of professional or Minnesota rules of professional conduct for lawyers cannot apply to me" (The Ethics Board hates this one WEIRD trick!)
Nick seems to think being suspended is a FUNNY and WEIRD state of translucent semi-eligibility, which enables him to present himself as licenced attorney in Minnesota , yet not be subject to the rules of its bar association.

Would you trust a suspended doctor practicing medicine? A suspended architect building a new house? Fucking retard. Suspension is temporary disbarment until it is either restored or permanently enforced. Every layperson understands this, Nick is just flat-out lying. I think @RaptInPlastic would like some timestamps on such excellent Magic Words™
 
Last edited:
Steve Seagull said:
Nick: "(...) Shut up! You're a nobody online like everybody else, but you're even more of a nobody. That's legal advice, baby. Take it in vain."

"I am giving 100% legal advice for all my clients, and this is protected by attorney-client privilege. And the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners, they actually approved and demanded that I say this specifically. That's what happened. (...) They've got this conundrum right now, some dork is telling them that I'm holding myself out as a lawyer representing clients, because I say, hey, I'm Nick Rekieta of Rekieta Law, a small law firm in central Minnesota. Those are all true statements, right? Nick Rekieta of Rekieta Law. And I am a lawyer. I'm not currently licensed to practice in Minnesota because my license is suspended, but I am a licensed attorney. I am licensed, but my license is suspended. I am not disbarred. My license is not gone or obliterated in any way. It's just on suspension. So they're telling me that they have a problem with me saying I'm a lawyer. I'm holding myself out as a lawyer. It's like, well, that's really interesting, because if I'm not a lawyer, if I'm not a lawyer, then the model rules of professional or Minnesota rules of professional conduct for lawyers cannot apply to me. It's like, if I'm not a lawyer, you can't hold me responsible under the rules. And if I am a lawyer, then I'm telling the truth. So if I'm bound by your rules, then I am a lawyer. I do not represent myself as licensed, but this is a weird artifact of how they do it. You can't apply the rules of professional conduct to non-lawyers. It doesn't work."
Click to expand...
Sovcit levels of argument from Rekieta here.
 
Steve Seagull said:
Someone's has taken a frivolous HRO against me. Until the matter is not resolved, we're under sequestration order."

Nick: "I'm confident in our position. I think we'll ultimately emerge victorious in this but it's up to the court, and we're on the court schedule."
LLLL: "And what is the court schedule, when's the next hearing?"
Nick: "There's not currently one scheduled, which is lovely. There was A deadline, which I can't discuss that's just passed now and we're waiting on the court to inform when the next thing will be.
Click to expand...
It's such a frivolous HRO that it's been in force for ~6 months (I think I remember it beginning in June but I may be wrong) and the court doesn't seem in a rush to throw it out or even tell Nick/Melton what is going on. Sounds frivolous to me.
 
SO: Nick started streaming 16 hours ago.
1765109542631.png

He needed to switch to the Lego stream, but he had a pause of 1 hour because of "tech problems"

And the ongoing stream is 9 hours long:
1765109652784.png

Local time for parents of 5:
1765109788851.png

ETA: finished 9:28:01


1765110505124.png
 
Last edited:
Host: "Lady Rackets, I have a question for you. What has been the best day of your life so far?"
Nick: "If her answer is wrong, I'll just trust her out of the will."

It's just jokes.

 
Nick got trolled on Matt and Ian again, he said its not a "legitimate question" of which the entire panel was confused why he wouldn't answer it.
 
Grayback said:
I agree—but mostly because it's been almost nine fucking hours, and he still hasn't been able to complete a set with only 1,508 pieces! That's not a lot!
How is he still working on it?
Click to expand...
I have gone to sleep and woken up in that timeframe, Jesus Christ. If I were a sleepwalker I could have done it faster with my consciousness disengaged.
 
Salty Potatoes said:
It's such a frivolous HRO that it's been in force for ~6 months (I think I remember it beginning in June but I may be wrong) and the court doesn't seem in a rush to throw it out or even tell Nick/Melton what is going on. Sounds frivolous to me.
Click to expand...
That is the thing that doesn’t make sense to me. If it is so damn frivolous, why would a judge allow it to drag on this long? But maybe it is normal and happens some times.
 
Steve Seagull said:
🚨HRO: he can't talk about it, he has a gag order:

Nick "We're still in our hearing, which our hearing is not concluded - I'm under a sequestration order about it's details. My HRO. Someone's has taken a frivolous HRO against me. Until the matter is not resolved, we're under sequestration order."

Nick: "I'm confident in our position. I think we'll ultimately emerge victorious in this but it's up to the court, and we're on the court schedule."
LLLL: "And what is the court schedule, when's the next hearing?"
Nick: "There's not currently one scheduled, which is lovely. There was A deadline, which I can't discuss that's just passed now and we're waiting on the court to inform when the next thing will be.
Click to expand...
 
The judge could pull the HROs tomorrow and it would still be another win for the Toe. Nick and Melton have been unable to shake the restrictions for the better part of a year. Aaron has been domming them the whole time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom