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.

  • 🔧 Actively working on site again.

What would the outcome of the harassment restraining order be?

  • A WIN for the Toe against Patrick Melton.

    Votes: 62 15.9%

  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 4 1.0%

  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 97 24.9%

  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 69 17.7%

  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 157 40.4%
  • Total voters
    389
So Part 1 was all Drexel, all the time. Topics were mostly about the relationship between men and women in the day of #MeToo, with Drexel giving his own MGTOW spin. At one point I wanted to go more in depth and started recording timestamps and such, but then decided I'm not going to bother going into that level of detail. I will say that they discussed greasing up Alicia Silverstone starting at 03:10 in part 1.

Starting at around 1:56:05, they talk about the case of someone named something like Ryan Ledoux, who was apparently busted for soliciting prostitution of a minor and related crimes after paying someone who turned out to be a fed to pimp out their kids to him. Does anyone know more about this case? I tried searching but couldn't find anything relevant; I probably have the name wrong. Apparently he was a streamer.

I'm about an hour into Part 2 and it's been more of the same. Drexel has discussed actively avoiding getting into elevators alone with white women. In both parts Nick has done some catching up with Drexel about Toye, The Brother, and other players in the Weeb Wars.
 
Last edited:
Love Soze said:
Jonathan Ryan Ledoux
https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news...perty/69-d29ab55a-683a-48f9-88d9-967b90a1d43d

If anyone has Pacer:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27607967/USA_v_Ledoux
Click to expand...

What's the context from the stream? Is there a legal question here or were they just discussing some sick fuck being a sick fuck? I see the indictment but I'll be honest, if the news story is any indication, I'm not sure I really want to read 19 pages of this freak getting opposite-BlueSpiked.
 
712787


Nick will be talking about the Mueller report on the stream tonight
 
Blue Jerkop said:
What's the context from the stream? Is there a legal question here or were they just discussing some sick fuck being a sick fuck? I see the indictment but I'll be honest, if the news story is any indication, I'm not sure I really want to read 19 pages of this freak getting opposite-BlueSpiked.
Click to expand...

Someone DMed him asking if he knew about it and would cover it. He looked it up and read the docs. He didn't really say if he was gonna cover it. I imagine not, unless it is part of a larger pedo stream.
 
Kosher Salt said:
YouTube doesn't give a shit whether the copyright holder sues. They can just leave the copyright strike against the channel regardless.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. Rekieta is counter-noticing them. After counter-notice, if they DON'T sue, the strike comes down and the video monetization goes back to him after a period of time.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: AnOminous and Prompt Critical
mindlessobserver said:
It really is shocking to me how much money people are willing to spend to watch some guy on the internet parrot their autistic musings. I like rekieta, but even I don't think its worth 100 bucks to see him say something stupid and then another 100 bucks to say oops I misstyped that last 100 dollar super chat.
Click to expand...
I was wondering if the people who do that do chargebacks after because I can't comprehend throwing money away like that.
 
Blue Jerkop said:
That's not how it works. Rekieta is counter-noticing them. After counter-notice, if they DON'T sue, the strike comes down and the video monetization goes back to him after a period of time.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Null has had a video struck over a copyright claim and tried that. Counter claim, fair use, under penalty of perjury, the whole nine yards. YouTube told him that his counter notice was not valid and to go pound sand.

I mean, in theory, under the law, what you said should be correct. But under YouTube's TOS, they don't have to follow the DMCA. YouTube can, at its sole discretion, decide that your video infringes on copyright and/or violates its terms of service. You have literally no recourse for this, unless you'd like to try to sue them - and good luck with that.

But conveniently they still get safe harbor protections. Funny that. They get to decide if your video infringes copyright or not, but they don't get to be liable if they decide wrongly. Their TOS is written to firmly absolve them of any responsibility.
 
Kosher Salt said:
Wrong. Null has had a video struck over a copyright claim and tried that. Counter claim, fair use, under penalty of perjury, the whole nine yards. YouTube told him that his counter notice was not valid and to go pound sand.

I mean, in theory, under the law, what you said should be correct. But under YouTube's TOS, they don't have to follow the DMCA. YouTube can, at its sole discretion, decide that your video infringes on copyright and/or violates its terms of service. You have literally no recourse for this, unless you'd like to try to sue them - and good luck with that.

But conveniently they still get safe harbor protections. Funny that. They get to decide if your video infringes copyright or not, but they don't get to be liable if they decide wrongly. Their TOS is written to firmly absolve them of any responsibility.
Click to expand...

Yeah but this is not a manual copyright strike, it's content-ID bullshit and an attempt by a 3rd party (apparently one that is not the copyright holder of the work in question) to take the money from the stream.

I mean, I still wouldn't write such an inflammatory response for twitter asspats, but he's not wrong. I think his love note goes to the claimant first, which they can deny (lol) and then he appeals to YouTube, at which point either the claimant issues a manual strike (actual DMCA area, not content-id) or relents. If they issue the strike, then he can dispute that as well... of course all this time he's not getting revenue for the video. At that point, once it's in the DMCA area, he doesn't have to give a shit about YouTube TOS (although since this isn't whatever shit Null was stirring, I see no reason why they wouldn't act normally). He can sue the claimant for damages. And he's ridiculous enough that he might. There's a reason why you don't legally fuck with lawyers. Most normal people would be blocked from responding to shit like this because they can't find a lawyer to take the case.
 
Last edited:
Blue Jerkop said:
Most normal people would be blocked from responding to shit like this because they can't find a lawyer to take the case.
Click to expand...

Nothing prevents a non-lawyer from counter notifying, it's just that their threats to sue are pretty empty. Nick may actually be looking for an opportunity to file a case like this because so many of these bullshit robot notifications go out and they're illegal but nobody does anything.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Zero Day Defense, Spaceman from space, waffle and 2 others
I also think 24 hour streams are silly but it apparently made him some good money (for YT), was probably some kind of reward for patreon or getting subscribers, and most of all... who would give a shit enough to write such a whinging post about a grown ass man deciding to do a 24 hour live stream?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back