Nick Rekieta's Weeb Wars videos & livestreams - MULTIPLE SLURS

[ThinkThankThunk]

Frankly I'm tired of hearing the same fat jokes with the same condescending faux-anger directed at the same group of exceptionals. It's been over a year of the same shit I got tired of hearing from Nick back in March. Maybe losing his last Twitter account will smarten him up and remind there are more things to mock than Jamie's arms or [insert irrelevant Twitter handle here]'s chin/ass/gunt rolls.

 

[AnOminous]

Here's the document he's talking about. He should probably link to these in the description when he's covering them.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/StateDept3DGuns-ORDER.pdf

 

[Garm]

Frankly I'm tired of hearing the same fat jokes with the same condescending faux-anger directed at the same group of exceptionals. It's been over a year of the same shit I got tired of hearing from Nick back in March. Maybe losing his last Twitter account will smarten him up and remind there are more things to mock than Jamie's arms or [insert irrelevant Twitter handle here]'s chin/ass/gunt rolls.

It is low hanging fruit. But it is what bothers them the most.

I would advocate that Nick host a "critique" with some beauty and fashion YouTubers of the the principle people of KickVic. Young, attractive women getting catty about Monica and Jamie's looks would cut them far deeper than Nick ever could.

 

[TexOffender]

It is low hanging fruit. But it is what bothers them the most.

I would advocate that Nick host a "critique" with some beauty and fashion YouTubers of the the principle people of KickVic. Young, attractive women getting catty about Monica and Jamie's looks would cut them far deeper than Nick ever could.

Just criticizing marzgurl horrible makeup jobs would be grand. She tries to strike videos that make fun of her lol

 

[AnOminous]

This case is bullshit. It starts a standing analysis as to whether these parties have standing to sue to invalidate a settlement between the federal government and a private party with the standard citation:

"To present a justiciable case or controversy under Article III, plaintiffs must demonstrate an “injury in fact” that is “fairly traceable” to the actions of the defendants and that will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)."

Then the court literally doesn't say a single fucking thing about what the so-called "injury in fact" is. And then never actually explicitly finds standing. Which is jurisdictional. Then goes on and decides the rest of the case. This is bullshit.

This is as close as it gets:

"The States’ interests in curbing violence, assassinations, terrorist threats, aviation and other security breaches, and violations of gun control laws within their borders are at least marginally related to the interests protected or regulated by the AECA."

That is ludicrously tenuous. It's the federal government that decides what can be done in international trade. The states don't get to say shit about it because they're "marginally related." How the fuck does that manufacture standing? For instance, I could get shot with one of these guns. That doesn't give ME standing to sue over the settlement.

I have rarely seen such a piss-weak standing analysis. It completely hand-waves away a jurisdictional challenge, largely because of the political opinion of the judge, and decides the case without any jurisdiction to do so.

Good luck with the Ninth Circuit though.

Also, that's not even getting to the main weirdness of this, which is that a state, Washington (and others) are dissatisfied with a settlement reached in a federal court in Texas, but are suing in a Washington federal court, which is not a court of appeals to a Texas federal court.

If I were the Texas federal judge in question, I'd say another district court has no jurisdiction to overrule decisions made in my court.

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

If the longstanding rumors are true, this is literally what they pay Renfamous to do. Bait people into telling her (or one of her socks or coworkers) to fuck off, then they mass flag the response to get them banned. It's a method of disposing of influential members of a social movement on behalf of corporations.

Like say, Sony.

Who is confirmed to work with Weber Shanwick, who Renfamous supposedly works for as a paid troll.

Sony Electronics picks Weber Shandwick for corporate account

Sony Electronics picks Weber Shandwick for corporate account. From PR Week

www.prweek.com

Sony Electronics picks Weber Shandwick for corporate account | PR Week

archived 11 Feb 2020 04:21:55 UTC

archive.ph

Given how many times I’ve seen Renfamous get suspended only to somehow still be on there, I believe it.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Good luck with the Ninth Circuit though.

Also, that's not even getting to the main weirdness of this, which is that a state, Washington (and others) are dissatisfied with a settlement reached in a federal court in Texas, but are suing in a Washington federal court, which is not a court of appeals to a Texas federal court.

If I were the Texas federal judge in question, I'd say another district court has no jurisdiction to overrule decisions made in my court.

And therein you nail the real problem here.

The 9th Circuit of Appeals are going to get this, go "Guns are scary and you don't REALLY have the right to own one and Orange Man BAD isn't REALLY our president so he can't do this because Obama wouldn't have" and then we're off to the SCOTUS.

But man, if this sets precedent... you thought the Commerce Clause nonsense was bad. Imagine any goddamned court case in the US being appealed in the 9th Circuit because the radical left has control of it, and they just say "nope, that Texan could travel to California therefore this is a Californian issue, enjoy our pozzed as fuck laws, you nazis."

Oh, and combine this with Obama's little 4th amendment gift -- Operation Pacifier, and the rule change they pushed through after those warrants started getting thrown out en mass. Aka the "A traffic court judge can issue a subpoena to hack every computer everywhere forever because you don't ACTUALLY have 4th amendment rights anymore and jurisdiction is stupid, because they make the glow in the darks' jobs hard" clusterfuck.

 

[Garm]

This case is bullshit. It starts a standing analysis as to whether these parties have standing to sue to invalidate a settlement between the federal government and a private party with the standard citation:

"To present a justiciable case or controversy under Article III, plaintiffs must demonstrate an “injury in fact” that is “fairly traceable” to the actions of the defendants and that will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)."

Then the court literally doesn't say a single fucking thing about what the so-called "injury in fact" is. And then never actually explicitly finds standing. Which is jurisdictional. Then goes on and decides the rest of the case. This is bullshit.

This is as close as it gets:

"The States’ interests in curbing violence, assassinations, terrorist threats, aviation and other security breaches, and violations of gun control laws within their borders are at least marginally related to the interests protected or regulated by the AECA."

That is ludicrously tenuous. It's the federal government that decides what can be done in international trade. The states don't get to say shit about it because they're "marginally related." How the fuck does that manufacture standing? For instance, I could get shot with one of these guns. That doesn't give ME standing to sue over the settlement.

I have rarely seen such a piss-weak standing analysis. It completely hand-waves away a jurisdictional challenge, largely because of the political opinion of the judge, and decides the case without any jurisdiction to do so.

Good luck with the Ninth Circuit though.

Also, that's not even getting to the main weirdness of this, which is that a state, Washington (and others) are dissatisfied with a settlement reached in a federal court in Texas, but are suing in a Washington federal court, which is not a court of appeals to a Texas federal court.

If I were the Texas federal judge in question, I'd say another district court has no jurisdiction to overrule decisions made in my court.

I was wondering about "if I teach a man to use machine tools, he can use those skills to build a gun. Am I empowering a person or am I weakening some one else's security?"

Guess federal courts would agree that I would be weakening someone else's security.

Granted this will be thrown out but the idea that somewhere there are people upset about the very knowledge of guns (blueprints) is disturbing indeed.

 

[Spectre_06]

It is low hanging fruit. But it is what bothers them the most.

I would advocate that Nick host a "critique" with some beauty and fashion YouTubers of the the principle people of KickVic. Young, attractive women getting catty about Monica and Jamie's looks would cut them far deeper than Nick ever could.

It would, but then the costhots would mass report the stream for being specifically to target and harass "victims" of Vic.

 

[Garm]

It would, but then the costhots would mass report the stream for being specifically to target and harass "victims" of Vic.

Damn. Good point.

 

[AnOminous]

The 9th Circuit of Appeals are going to get this, go "Guns are scary and you don't REALLY have the right to own one and Orange Man BAD isn't REALLY our president so he can't do this because Obama wouldn't have" and then we're off to the SCOTUS.

We don't know that. The Ninth Circuit is neither left nor right at this point. Trump has filled a number of vacancies Obama failed to fill. It has more conservatives on it than before. The problem with the Ninth Circuit isn't that it's left or right anyway, but that it's completely broken, and presides over a grab bag of completely incompatible jurisdictions (Alaska Arizona California Hawaii you get the idea). You get a panel of three random judges, who could be three of the most conservative judges in the country or three of the most liberal (which do not mean the same thing in the judiciary anyway).

So in any political case you might as well roll the dice on the outcome. I'm hoping the standing reasoning is so obviously threadbare and frankly outright stupid that any panel will overturn it but you can't be sure. Without standing there's no jurisdiction and nothing else matters.

Also for the sheer stupidity of this, the standing is purely based on the tenuous concept that people committing crimes in California are going to contact people from out of the country to get these CAD files (which are protected by the First Amendment anyway but the judge here basically just said fuck the First Amendment who cares with no reasoning at all), and then use them to manufacture weapons outside the country, and then import them.

Meanwhile, anyone in the country is already allowed to do whatever they like with these files. The regulation is solely on the export of this data. So they could just get them here and manufacture the guns here in the first place.

Or just buy an actual normal gun instead of creating a plastic novelty item likely to fail if you even try to use it in a real crime.

Also ITAR itself for data is absolutely fucking ridiculous anyway. If you've ever heard of this obsolete law in the first place, it's probably because it is what was used to frivolously threaten Phil Zimmerman for publishing PGP. That's the kind of shit this law does. It's almost certainly unconstitutional in every application of this sort.

 

[Kosher Salt]

@AnOminous You realize that the same laws used to be used to justify restricting the "export" of computer code for encryption that didn't have NSA backdoors.

Export of cryptography from the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's not like this insanity is anything new. Freedom of speech takes a back seat when the government decides that something tangentially involves national security.

 

[AnOminous]

@AnOminous You realize that the same laws used to be used to justify restricting the "export" of computer code for encryption that didn't have NSA backdoors.

Yes, I mentioned that in the last paragraph of my post.

 

[ClipBitch]

I'm curious to see what (if anything) legal-wise will come from the ronversations. Nick mentioned several times throughout the videos that he'll be forwarding them to the beard. The time when ronnie accidentally reinforced the civil conspiracy charge (or w/e the term is, I forget) thing stands out to me. It'd be hilarious if ron actively made the lawsuit worse for himself.

There's also evidence that ron has been coordinating with others to spread a narrative. Could that give the law boys the leverage needed to gain access to his message history? Because if I understand things correctly then if the appeals work then beard might get another round of discovery.

 

[TheClappening]

I'm curious to see what (if anything) legal-wise will come from the ronversations. Nick mentioned several times throughout the videos that he'll be forwarding them to the beard. The time when ronnie accidentally reinforced the civil conspiracy charge (or w/e the term is, I forget) thing stands out to me. It'd be hilarious if ron actively made the lawsuit worse for himself.

There's also evidence that ron has been coordinating with others to spread a narrative. Could that give the law boys the leverage needed to gain access to his message history? Because if I understand things correctly then if the appeals work then beard might get another round of discovery.

Well, every time Ron calls Vic some kind of sex offender, he's adding fresh defamation, since he's communicating that statement to a third party, Nick.

 

[TexOffender]

More ronversations.

 

[Laundui_or_douchette?]

I'm curious to see what (if anything) legal-wise will come from the ronversations. Nick mentioned several times throughout the videos that he'll be forwarding them to the beard. The time when ronnie accidentally reinforced the civil conspiracy charge (or w/e the term is, I forget) thing stands out to me. It'd be hilarious if ron actively made the lawsuit worse for himself.

There's also evidence that ron has been coordinating with others to spread a narrative. Could that give the law boys the leverage needed to gain access to his message history? Because if I understand things correctly then if the appeals work then beard might get another round of discovery.

I liked Nick just asking the question repeatedly of Ron if he & Monica discussed their actions.
Definitely was pushing for the civil conspiracy route.

 

[KittyLoaf]

Of course, blame the baby Rackets.

 

[GenericReviewerDraco]

AniMat is "allegedly" one of Soye's hired hands on the PR front.

Holy shit why did he even bother with that weirdo? MBA and his chimping about fucking up Nick and his family/neighborhood with bows and arrows was more mentally stable than the naked soy pedo.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

AniMat is "allegedly" one of Soye's hired hands on the PR front.

Holy shit why did he even bother with that weirdo? MBA and his chimping about fucking up Nick and his family/neighborhood with bows and arrows was more mentally stable than the naked soy pedo.

They are desperate to find a mouthpiece to counter Nick.
1. Shane
2. T. Greg Doucette (LawTwitter in general)
3. AnitMat