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

[Gorilla Milk]

The appellate court has decided to grant the extension, while also stating that since Matthew Hardin is intervening as a 3rd party the rules of civil appellate apply.

Can you explain what the rules of civil appellate are, and why this is a W for us? Just curious, not a lawyer but I find law interesting.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

while also stating that since Matthew Hardin is intervening as a 3rd party the rules of civil appellate apply.

Good decision. Going by criminal rules would make no sense.

I'm slightly perturbed by the lack of any specific reference to what rules apply other than "Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 131.01, subd. 1" as to deadlines.

I read it that it's governed solely by civil rules of procedure given the following: "This thus is a civil appealed governed by the rules of civil appellate procedure". If Civil appellate rules govern, then so do civil rules regarding underlying intervention issues, the way I see it.

Can you explain what the rules of civil appellate are, and why this is a W for us? Just curious, not a lawyer but I find law interesting.

Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure are, as the name says, rules that have to be followed and that control civil appeals. If I sued you for defamation, for example, and lost, my appeal would be governed by the Civil Appellate rules. If I got convicted of raping 75 niggers, my appeal would be governed by Rules of Criminal Appellate Procedure. Particularly because this is a state case, the rules referenced are local rules, not federal ones which have a similar name.

As for why it is good, read this:

How do you litigate a civil matter (violation of rights) under the criminal rules of procedure? If for no other reason than that, the lower court judgement seems erroneous particularly as the court itself admits that Minnesota's rules of criminal procedure do not contemplate anything regarding intervention while the civil ones do.

Minnesota's criminal rules do not allow or contemplate intervention, but civil ones do.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

If I got convicted of raping 75 niggers, my appeal would be governed by Rules of Criminal Appellate Procedure

You would sell the movie rights to Harvey Weinstein and be pardoned.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

You would sell the movie rights to Harvey Weinstein and be pardoned.

@Illuminati Order Official do you remember who was Harvey among us? I think I was Dershowitz, wasn't I?

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

@Illuminati Order Official do you remember who was Harvey among us? I think I was Dershowitz, wasn't I?

The one who pissed her off the most that day was either Harvey or Tony.
The one she liked was Michael Fassbender.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

I hope Hardin did not forget the brief that was due today (August 11th) in appeals court.
So far nothing has popped up.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I hope Hardin did not forget the brief that was due today (August 11th) in appeals court.
So far nothing has popped up.

View attachment 7768163

Online appellate system is always about a day late in Minnesota for watchers like us.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Online appellate system is always about a day late in Minnesota for watchers like us.

Good to know it is consistent late with the uploads.
But I still want to read it now!

Null should get us a copy when it gets filed.

 

[obsdj]

But I still want to read it now!

Well, we got this at some point in the wee hours: Motion for Leave to File Overlength Addendum.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Brief is not viewable remotely

 

[DiabeticSydePhil]

Brief is not viewable remotelyView attachment 7770450

So reading this correctly, they are accepting the 76 page version and backdating it a bit to be timely (or just accepting it before the deadline) so now it's the other lawyers turn to file a response?

Is this the kind of thing MNRecords can nab or are we left in the dark.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Brief is not viewable remotely

My mistake, the brief is viewable remotely. I guess the appendix wasn't or something

so now it's the other lawyers turn to file a response?

Yes

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

It appears that the Addendum is not publicly viewable? Do I see that correctly?

Is that because it contains information that the public should not have access to?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Is that because it contains information that the public should not have access to?

Local rules or too large probably, because the Addendum is composed of the relevant records within the lower court

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

It is a good read and in my opinion solidly argued.
They cannot really make a case for the body cam footage not being used as evidence when the court watched it, commented on its content, and relied on it during a hearing, and it was additionally cited 6 times as evidence in the brief presented.

I think this is the strongest argument why the footage should be made public again.
The "privacy of minors" concern is idiotic, since their faces are consistently blurred in footage or the relevant portions cut out as a remedy.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It is a good read and in my opinion solidly argued.

My biggest gripe is that it has far too little Minnesota caselaw and the relevant circuit authority. Most of it is from 3rd and 8th circuits, which is persuasive, certainly, but not binding.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

My biggest gripe is that it has far too little Minnesota caselaw and the relevant circuit authority. Most of it is from 3rd and 8th circuits, which is persuasive, certainly, but not binding.

I am a bit disappointed that he did not argue that the right for the public to view the footage is also born from the out of courts statements made by the defendant about the content of the footage, including the exact scene cited in the briefing about the alleged Miranda Violation.

He argued with everyone for weeks if not months about the multitude of violations committed by law enforcement, which he was going to prove using the footage once the case was over. The public has a right to view the footage for so many different reasons.

I concede that the bulk of this might be more appropriate for the other lawsuit, but it might have helped to mention it.

 

[Pentamidine]

It'll be really funny if the bodycam gets released because Nick retardedly invoked someone else's 5th amendment rights in his equally retarded Franks motion. What an unforced error

 

[Old English Roast Beef]

The dividing lines on the cover of Bromke's template are misaligned and with lossy compression, and it bothers me more than it should.

 

[Oxyjen]

I am a bit disappointed that he did not argue that the right for the public to view the footage is also born from the out of courts statements made by the defendant about the content of the footage, including the exact scene cited in the briefing about the alleged Miranda Violation.

That’s not really relevant to suing MN for manoeuvring to block his access though.

Seems well worded and succinct to me too, but what do we know!