State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Rekieta, Kayla Rekieta, April Imholte

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?

  • Total voters
    1,225
Next Highlight
Sheryl Nome said:
Its not that the line of prosecution was weak, its that the state isn't going to go all hard ass on a first time perpetrator with no kind of violent crime committed.
Click to expand...
Then why would they not have added the charge for him (and Kayla) feeding cocaine to an eight year old girl? That's a specific crime against a child unlike the neglect charge which is automatic for having drugs in the house with kids. I'm really drawing a blank unless Nick was telling the truth about the test (he wasn't based on his CPS testimony and relying on some insane druggie doctor on Quora for "evidence") or the state felt it would be too difficult to prosecute (like there was some irregularity in the test that Nick could use to weasel his way out of the charge).
Sheryl Nome said:
The Diversion program is leniency, but its the kind of leniency most people want to see with drug addicts because we generally don't hold them to the same level of culpability.

Nick didn't get a particularly great or awful deal here, he got what is probably about standard and he took it because if they had gone to trial he was dead to rights.
Click to expand...
Then what does a great deal look like? Nick had so much cocaine he probably could've been convicted of some low-level drug dealer charge. I get not handing Nick the 2nd degree drug possession charge because of the weight of the cocaine bags, but if the system were honestly interested in rehabilitating a trust fund loser who sought out the lifestyle of a white trash junkie, they would be making him plead guilty to all three charges and not giving him nonsense like clearing his record after his probation is finished. This isn't about something sadly unrealistic like sentencing Nick to prison for a first time offense, it's about how this doesn't make sense from any judicial philosophy beside one Nick himself might advocate. What does the state gain by handing a privileged man (and one who's alienated his local community) who is obviously guilty of both high level drug charges and abuse of children a slap on the wrist?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Disagree
Reactions: Melty Butter, spacko and Folgers Can
Save the Loli said:
Then why would they not have added the charge for him (and Kayla) feeding cocaine to an eight year old girl? That's a specific crime against a child unlike the neglect charge which is automatic for having drugs in the house with kids. I'm really drawing a blank unless Nick was telling the truth about the test (he wasn't based on his CPS testimony and relying on some insane druggie doctor on Quora for "evidence") or the state felt it would be too difficult to prosecute (like there was some irregularity in the test that Nick could use to weasel his way out of the charge).
Click to expand...
A few possibilities:
  1. CPS are lazy fucks that infinitely prefer keeping families together rather than doing what's right
  2. CPS saw that Nick was going to be forced into rehab/probation by the legal case against him, and thought to themselves "good well done", refer to point 1
  3. CPS did not feel like it would be good to bring lab results into question considering how many of their cases could be overturned if the shrieking faggot was somehow right and a cop dusted his daughter
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Dumb
Reactions: Peanut Butter Trails, Old Man Mario, Terrifik and 4 others
I assume everyone in this thread is familiar with Rekieta's criminal case. However, for those who want a review of the past events in the case he pleaded guilty to, I've made a video compiling these happenings.

I had to skip the Franks/Appeal part of the story because they were dismissed and would disrupt the pacing of the video.

Nick Rekieta PLEADED GUILTY: A Retrospective​


# SOURCES: REKIETA
• LOLSUIT VICTORY LIVESTREAM: MADDOX LOST MADDOX LOST | Rekieta Law
• LoLsuit #28 Munoz Files For Sanctions - A Good Friday Livestream with Rekieta Law
• The Results of My Appeal Are In! I Wonder How It Went?! | Rekieta Law
• STMS: A Shirtless Nick Rekieta (March 25, 2024) | Elissa Clips
• Rekieta Law Explains Why You Should NEVER Talk To Cops | PKA
• Chrissie Mayr Podcast LIVE with Nick Rekieta! What Should We Talk About? | Chrissie Mayr
• THIS LITTLE PIGGY: A Steel Toe Morning Show Roundtable Discussion (November 8, 2024) | Nobody Likes Onions
• NOT Talking About Things That People Want To Hear - Friday FanMail | Rekieta Law
• Settlement Conferences & Plea Deals w/ The Dick Show & Rekieta Law (Dec 9, 2024) | Elissa Clips
• Time To Get Back To Work... Let's Chat | Rekieta Law
• SteelToe Aaron Imholte Lied | LA Fires Truth Plus Melonie Mac Gooner Gate FT REKIETA LAW | Camelot331
• The State WILL Lie - Adversarial Positions, Explained (June 10, 2024) | elissa clips
• Not Sending Their Best with Dick Masterson | Rekieta Law
• Huge Update in My Case - Kamala Code Switch - Gorsuch's Warning to Biden | Rekieta Law
• Court Day Results - Legal Experts Baffled | Rekieta Law
• A Motion to Dismiss: Inside Scoop on April's Hearing - SCOTUS Stuff

# SOURCES: POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL
• Rekieta was ARRESTED
Nick Rekieta Arrested, Taiwanese MP Hacks Democracy, Scottie Scheffler Update, and more!
• Nick Rekieta Arraignment | Potentially Criminal
• Nick Rekieta's Search Warrant Explained (feat ‪@NateTheLawyer‬) | Potentially Criminal
• Nick Rekieta's Police Raid | Potentially Criminal
• Nick vs. The Guardian Ad Litem | Potentially Criminal
• Nick Rekieta Enters a GUILTY Plea | Potentially Criminal

# SOURCES: MEME COPIUM
• Nick Rekieta ARRESTED - Breaking News
• Rekieta Arrest UPDATE - Search Warrant RELEASED | Meme Copium
• Rekieta ARREST - Lawtube Civil War, Doc Drops, BodyCam Details & COPE | Meme Copium
• Rekieta Law CONFIRMS Insane CPS Report - The Case Just got DARKER | Meme Copium

# SOURCES: MATI
• Mad at the Internet (May 28th, 2024) | Mad at the Internet
• 1 Year of Hamster (June 21st, 2024) - Mad at the Internet
https://rumble.com/v52v1el-mad-at-the-internet-june-21st-2024.html (@1:15:18)

# SOURCES: LEGAL MINDSET, NATE THE LAWYER, UNCIVIL LAW, LAW OF SELF DEFENSE
• Nick Rekieta Search Warrant Revealed (LIVE) | Legal Mindset
• Nick Rekeita Case : The Warrant REVEALED and dissected | Uncivil Law
• Nick Rekieta Search Warrant Revealed (LIVE) | Legal Mindset
• Rekieta Arrest Report and Full Details Released | Nate The Lawyer and Uncivil Law
• Rekieta Law Case Turns: Nick Faces BAD Facts (LIVE) | Legal Mindset
• Fighting Demons: My Friend, Nick Rekieta | Law of Self Defense
• Nick Rekieta Pleads GUILTY | Nate the Lawyer

# SOURCES: KINO CASINO, METOKUR, LAW&CRIME, ARRAINGMENT, OTHERS
• NICK REKIETA ARRESTED WITH WIFE AND APRIL IMHOLTE! WITH SPECIAL GUEST - JOSH MOON! | Kino Casino
• Mister Metokur - Internet Insanity LIVE: Nick Rekieta [2024-05-25] (NO Superchats/Breaks) | Xyzern
• YouTuber Nick Rekieta & Wife Charged with Child Endangerment, Drug Possession | Law&Crime Network
• Rekieta ARRAIGNMENT - Representing himself and charges
Nick Rekieta Arraignment, Live | MLS (Making Law Simple)

# KIWI FARMS POSTS / YT COMMENTS:
• Rekieta ARRESTED 1
• PRO SE and 25 grams or more
• FINALLY STEPPING FOOT IN A COURT ROOM
• Talk about a fall from grace
• Rekieta Group chat 01
• Vito: a podcaster being on coke doesn't seem like much of a revelation haha
• Elissa Clips: Log off
• Metokur: Just pull the power plug
• vito - nick will beat this
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Lemon-Lime Turpentine, 0life, suspended animation and 32 others
The judge took one look at this shitshow and clocked rightfully that Nick is the problem, so Nick needs probation and a chance to unfuck his life.

Kayla isn't the one buying coke for the household and hopefully she gets the help she needs for her pill popping. Though considering she (supposedly) made Nick kick April out she's had some kind of come to Jesus moment and realized she's torching her relationship with her kids.

In a perfectly just world, Nick's new PO would ban this retard from leaving the state so he can't go hang out with his pedophile friends doing drugs.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Peanut Butter Trails, Laquisha Guntermensch, spacko and 3 others
Save the Loli said:
Then what does a great deal look like? Nick had so much cocaine he probably could've been convicted of some low-level drug dealer charge. I get not handing Nick the 2nd degree drug possession charge because of the weight of the cocaine bags, but if the system were honestly interested in rehabilitating a trust fund loser who sought out the lifestyle of a white trash junkie, they would be making him plead guilty to all three charges and not giving him nonsense like clearing his record after his probation is finished. This isn't about something sadly unrealistic like sentencing Nick to prison for a first time offense, it's about how this doesn't make sense from any judicial philosophy beside one Nick himself might advocate. What does the state gain by handing a privileged man (and one who's alienated his local community) who is obviously guilty of both high level drug charges and abuse of children a slap on the wrist?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the world of CPS this one of the most incompetent government departments who enable child abusers all the time and take children from actually loving parents because they let them walk to school by themselves.
 
  • Horrifying
  • Disagree
  • Dumb
Reactions: Friend of Dorothy Parker, spacko, LiquidChrisRespecter and 2 others
Kids living with druggie parents will often times get exposed to drugs. Simple fact of life. They interviewed the kids multiple times and (it's probably fair to say) they found no explanation for her hair sample, or evidence of anything more nefarious like molestation.

Shit can happen. If they had evidence she was being given cocaine deliberately then this all would have turned out differently, and with the absence of an explanation then all they can do is hope it was some dumb druggy fuck up like reusing the coke plate for a child's meal or something.
 
  • Like
  • Optimistic
  • Agree
Reactions: Turbo Hornbag Hervez, Melty Butter, Lobster Cult High Priest and 4 others
Save the Loli said:
Then why would they not have added the charge for him (and Kayla) feeding cocaine to an eight year old girl? That's a specific crime against a child unlike the neglect charge which is automatic for having drugs in the house with kids.
Click to expand...
Dumpster dived waifu said:
A few possibilities:
  1. CPS are lazy fucks that infinitely prefer keeping families together rather than doing what's right
  2. CPS saw that Nick was going to be forced into rehab/probation by the legal case against him, and thought to themselves "good well done", refer to point 1
  3. CPS did not feel like it would be good to bring lab results into question considering how many of their cases could be overturned if the shrieking faggot was somehow right and a cop dusted his daughter
Click to expand...

Sadly the simplest explanation would be that the hair test, even if somehow proven accurate beyond a reasonable doubt after a battle of experts at trial, would not in and of itself show all essential elements of an enhanced offense to begin with. Poking around various other child abuse statutes that you'd think might fit (a complete list of which can be found at Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 5), most wouldn't apply at all (such as sex offenses) and the few that these facts could even conceivably be shoehorned into (such as regular assault, domestic assault, malicious punishment, or contributing to delinquency of a minor) would only be gross misdemeanors in the absence of proven substantial bodily harm. Since Nick's child endangerment count was already a gross misdemeanor, the state bothering to prove actual exposure to cocaine for conviction of some other gross misdemeanor would have been a waste of time.

Unless the above is missing some glaring "Don't Feed Your Kid Coke Act" out there, even proving intentional dosing of the child would have still been stuck with application of the same exact statute under which Nick was charged, which is automatically at least a gross misdemeanor and would be enhanced to a felony only if one additional fact is proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

ExposureFelony.jpg

Minn. Stat. § 609.378, subd. 1(b).

So there you have it, the child's actual exposure, even when proven, is not a felony in Minnesota without the added element of proven substantial harm to the child's health. Think about it: how was the state even supposed to prove that extra element? Surely there would be cases where it's a no-brainer like when a kid pops some fentanyl and suffers enough hypoxia on the way to the ER to come out of it a vegetable, but coke?

In a perfect world maybe it could be enough to have an army of medical experts take the stand and opine that any exposure of a then-8-year-old with dosage so high and/or over so lengthy a period as the hair test result suggests would always cause substantial harm, but when that's weighed against whatever hired-gun experts Nick would have called to state the exact opposite, in the end it would have boiled down to medical testing and psychological examinations to prove whether the kid was in fact substantially harmed. Perhaps something like radiological scans or blood biomarker tests showing irreversible damage to cardiac tissue could have done the trick, or perhaps even an examining psychiatrist's diagnosis of clinical depression resulting from withdrawals could have sufficed in a pinch, but one way or another they needed to prove more than exposure alone.

As a matter of course the state would have sought out that sort of evidence, and it appears that they did when considering that their disclosures to defense counsel included multiple rounds of medical records, and when considering Nick's hiring of a shrink presumably to counter any problematic findings from psychological examinations that the state would have procured:

JuneMedicalDisclosure.jpg

[LINK]

JulyMedicalDisclosure.jpg

[LINK]

ShrinkExpert.jpg

[LINK]

The dispositive effect of this missing element also lines up well with all the times Nick publicly obsessed on a Coomalot appearance and on TDS and on Xitter and elsewhere about extensive medical testing of the kids revealing each to be an absolute picture of health with above-average height and body weight etc., and lines up well with all the times he publicly obsessed on TLP and on Xitter about his reading too much into the prosecutor's letter response to Null's video coverage motion where she mentioned offhand that no appearance by a personal victim was anticipated: all of this was foremost on his mind because he had spent months terrified that the state just might stumble upon sufficient evidence of substantial harm to file an amended complaint enhancing the child endangerment count to its felony variant at any given moment. When the medical reports came back and the prosecutor's letter came back he breathed sighs of relief at these telltale signs that by sheer dumb luck he dodged a bullet as the state must not have found exactly what they needed, and he's been crowing about it ever since.

But don't let prosecutors' above struggle to grapple with an either inartfully worded or intentionally lenient statutory framework confuse Nick's braindead audience as it voraciously eats up every last glib remark from Karl, Juju, and the rest of the Balldoguard that failure to file enhanced charges must mean that the hair test itself obviously must have been "thrown out" buy some court order that Nick conveniently will never show to anybody. Why confuse them?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Peanut Butter Trails, Belgians in the Congo, Turbo Hornbag Hervez and 10 others
ddlloo said:
Kids living with druggie parents will often times get exposed to drugs. Simple fact of life. They interviewed the kids multiple times and (it's probably fair to say) they found no explanation for her hair sample, or evidence of anything more nefarious like molestation.

Shit can happen. If they had evidence she was being given cocaine deliberately then this all would have turned out differently, and with the absence of an explanation then all they can do is hope it was some dumb druggy fuck up like reusing the coke plate for a child's meal or something.
Click to expand...
And giving all the coke covered stuff to his favorite daughter just by accident on a regular basis? There is no ebidance that the test was faulty. Just Nick lying about the entire nature of the test like a lying liar. So he either exposed one specific child to cocaine on a regular basis completely by accident and coincidence, OR the drug lab just happened to get a concerningly high false positive and just not care to retest?
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: spacko, Dixieland Buckaroo and Folgers Can
Dude Dragons said:
Dude is skin and bones 😳
Click to expand...
Yeah, the people saying he's looking much better need to get their eyes checked. He is definitely drinking again while he's still able to before probation. He's all red and haggard. His nose looks more hooked or crooked like it was broken and not set in place to heal properly. I know it's probably something to do with cocaine.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Peanut Butter Trails, Turbo Hornbag Hervez, spacko and 3 others
Me262PrinceOfTurboJet said:
If he fucks up, or tries to sneak some Galaxy Gas, or throws a temper tantrum and says his probation officer is absolutely bullshit lying, he gets arrested in front of his kids again.
Click to expand...
And if he streams, this is his audience. People who want to see his ass get fucked by the cops live. A-Logs. People who will call the cops saying this guy on probation is on drugs on stream again.

He will either fuck up or, even if he stays straight, it will be utter hell for him as he's constantly tormented by trolls and not even the hands-off Kiwi kind, but the kind people like Daniel Larson and Cyrax get.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Agree
Reactions: Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL, Peanut Butter Trails, Laquisha Guntermensch and 3 others

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Peanut Butter Trails, Terrifik, Laquisha Guntermensch and 3 others
DiabeticSydePhil said:
The judge took one look at this shitshow and clocked rightfully that Nick is the problem, so Nick needs probation and a chance to unfuck his life.

Kayla isn't the one buying coke for the household and hopefully she gets the help she needs for her pill popping. Though considering she (supposedly) made Nick kick April out she's had some kind of come to Jesus moment and realized she's torching her relationship with her kids.

In a perfectly just world, Nick's new PO would ban this retard from leaving the state so he can't go hang out with his pedophile friends doing drugs.
Click to expand...

That would be Kayla who asked the cops to get her medication when she was in the cells and it turned out to be gummies.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: spacko
AMHOLIO said:
He has less money to spend on drugs and alcohol which leads to having to go down in highs or get them more cheaply. One is torture, the other means he will fry his brain even more and not realize it, frustrating him. He still won't connect the dots that he did it to himself. Even if he actually capitulates and says him using inhalants caused this, he would blame others for suggesting it or the state taking away his ability to do other drugs, forcing him into it.
Click to expand...
For Nick’s consideration:
IMG_8374.jpeg
Choose wisely.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Peanut Butter Trails, Laquisha Guntermensch, Third World Aristocrat and 5 others
Sorry i know im late to the party so rate my post as such because im willing to accept due punishment.

but Nick has been saying for many months now he is innocent and has receipts to back it up. im wondering what sleazy back door tactics have been used to wrangle this reaction. i assume someone, probably a kiwifarmer (because lets be honest - you kiwifags will stop at nothing to ruin innocent peoples lives) has by attrition or bribery manipulated the powers that be into forcing this miscarriage of justice.

Nick has sworn for YEARS that he will never lie and holds truth, justice and God above all. as a family man there is no other reason for this about face.

Nick had the US judicial system on the ropes but at the last second a heel turn has occured. the worst part is now we will never know the reality of the situation as Nick is presumably forced against his will to ever reveal the truth.

Boo, Kiwifarms. booooo. Another scream goes unheeded against the evils of this world.

Likely we will never see the bodycam footage because it fully exonerates Nick.

You should all be ashamed.
 
Last edited:
  • Dumb
  • Like
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Peanut Butter Trails, Thoughtcrime84, Left Beef and 8 others
Dumpster dived waifu said:
A few possibilities:
  1. CPS are lazy fucks that infinitely prefer keeping families together rather than doing what's right
  2. CPS saw that Nick was going to be forced into rehab/probation by the legal case against him, and thought to themselves "good well done", refer to point 1
  3. CPS did not feel like it would be good to bring lab results into question considering how many of their cases could be overturned if the shrieking faggot was somehow right and a cop dusted his daughter
Click to expand...
Let's get real here. I do not know where you live but where I live some of the shit CPS finds it so vile and disgusting, you have to put Nick's neglect into perspective and ask where you want CPS to actually be for the real shit. what happened with Nick's kids is way down the bottom of the list of the shit they see and deal with.
Like all first time offenses, they give opportunities and why would you destroy a family unless you had to? Unless you have to?

Stay tuned, because Nick hasn't finished fucking up yet.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Peanut Butter Trails, Ice Cream Duck, el bandito loco and 12 others
Bunkerhousing said:
Now that he have pleaded guilty, can we get the bodycam now?
Click to expand...
That is still a no. Bodycam footage is private/non-public under Minnesota law and only the subject of the footage can request a release under normal circumstances. Had it been introduced as evidence during the trial it would have been public, since evidence in a trial is, but no trial means no evidence, so no bodycam footage.

There are instances in which the release is also allowed, but those largely revolve around police shootings and the likes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back