- Registrado
- 16 de Ago, 2019
Minnesota is a beautiful state. Love going there for vacation… buts its practically Midsommar (2019) with the local government and then there’s the mix in of Somolians.
💀 Horrorcow Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta / "u/Early-Leopard-8351" - Polysubstance abusing puppy snuffing cuckold who dosed his child, "Lawtube pope" turned zesty Dabbleverse streamer. Swinger visitor of 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Seethed at his ex-BF Aaron on REDDIT. Wife's gunted and toed bod worth $50. Drives like a Jeet.
- Iniciador del tema Himedall All-seeing Waifu
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 DDoS attack. Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/.
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack). -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 15 de Mar, 2019
You're really ruining my zen thing man.
- Registrado
- 20 de Feb, 2025
Its not Nick. Just because an account is accessible doesn't mean your authorised to do so.
Again, if your local Judge left her laptop open, you can't search her inter-court groupchats for how often she called you a retard. He's being intentionally dense to avoid charges.
How does this generate screenshots of post-departure Google history, Nick? What's your point? If anything you just admitted to profiling Aaron then intentionally creating harassing content.
Okay Nick, I'll take you at your word. Its reasonable you could figure out who would group together to fuck with you. A little bit of deductive work, good job.
But how exactly could you deduce the EXACT nature of their conversations? How did you make this deduction only four days after Elissa emailed Aaron?
For all my critique of Moody of being a hyper-analytic faggot, it also works in his favour.
He knows enough to (at least) not be (visibly) involved in gay ops. He's head of R&D at some robotaxi startup and doesn't have enough skin in the game to give himself a legal headache.
To me at least, Moody probably sat back on the fence and let events occur without the opportunity to be accused of conspiring with or preventing it. IIRC in Breaking Balldo News' post about the NLO Discord, Moody openly speculated that Nick actually committed the crime and that it was real.
Melton and Aaron is his passion project, he can easily eject himself out of this entire sphere whenever he wants to.
Última edición por un moderador:
- Registrado
- 22 de Oct, 2020
Aaron aught to come at this clear but very concise, as the history is really convoluted. Help the judge understand what happened in full, concisely, respectfully, & as honest as possible. Nick has drowned three court cases in a tonne of shit as a tactic. Explaining what went on, in a simple yet strong & clear way will likely help Aaron more than anything at this point. He hasn’t sold the milk cow just yet, I think the editing process will be his biggest gun in the upcoming HRO hearing on July 15th. If he can condense 2000 words into 500, it’ll help a lot.
If Aaron (plus a well spoken lawyer) can make a clear, concise, recount of the happenings, including the history of swinging, which when the Toe left the Qover & “dared” to give an interview, Nick got mad, & over those first weeks, went on to blame & looked to catch up Aaron in his balldo revenge schemes. Most break ups don’t warrant interviews, though Rackets & Toe are both streamers who had people interested in the swinger thing & Nicks arrest.
There is a case to be made the revenge against Aaron started due to the Kino Casino interview, with the three wolves (Nick, Kayla, & April) working in tandem because Aaron was no longer with them, didn’t get arrested with them, & Nick publically showed his ass multiple times that he was using the courts to point at Aaron due to his anger at Aaron fucking up his romantic plans. Then the state witness stuff, the RP photo event as it happened IRL with multiple people, (aka Geno + Keanu) after the state witness stuff re Nicks arrest.) Long story short, the real timeline could be the Toe’s best friend here. To pull it off he’d have to admit his wrongs, his rights, while not neglecting to mention the “whole story” of Nicks actions & words to date.
Speak up strong black woman Toe, truth outs.
Exactly, government time can move at a pace on par with molasses.
- Registrado
- 21 de Ago, 2018
The government should begin its' argument to the grand jury by going "I feel I must warn this fine jury that the information I am about to display is graphic and disturbing in nature. Ladies and gentlemen behold: The Balldo."
- Registrado
- 13 de Jul, 2017
I dunno how he can claim that when he posted screencaps (being reposted here by @Sneed Force One and others right now) of him going through Aaron's browser history. Browser history that was generated POST leaving the Quover, no less! I dunno how that's not "use." You'd think that he kinda fucked himself on that one.
Mind you, that's different from anything actually happening legally, but he's clearly lying again.
Another thing that has always bugged the shit out of me is that he focused in like a laser on @elb and @Potentially Criminal being in contact with Aaron.
I can tell you that if he had said *I* was in contact with Aaron, I would have deduced he's just blind firing, because I have never contacted Aaron before, and have no intention of ever doing so either.
But why just those two, if he was merely just guessing? There's a LOT of other people he could have accused of talking to Aaron, yet did not. Plenty of other people have grown to hate Nick. It's like he had way more than just a hunch. Like he was actually reading people's mail.
That's bugged me for a long time now.
- Registrado
- 17 de Mayo, 2021
It is theory-crafting until something drops to confirm or deny. Perhaps it will connect dots in someone's brain and lead to laughs, but until then, we shall wait until the constables knock upon the Balldo Lair's gates once more.
He is playing word games. Would he go with 'someone sent this to me, and I am a journalist, so I am protected from receiving hacked information?' or something more retarded? I do not know...
Stiffy
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 17 de Oct, 2024
MAPton is a tech wiz too, I think his degree is in computer science I forget. Either way both of them do black hat type shit. The problem is Aaron has to prove it. And the only way possible is if someone snitches, or something is discovered that could only have come from Aaron's personal Google account.
Hamburger Detractor
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 10 de Feb, 2025
God damn...how sad and shitty is his life in New Zealand when a pedophile in Las Vegas alogging a shitty radio show in Minnesota is his "passion"? He must have no family or real friends to get himself so involved in retarded internet slap fighting halfway across the world.
- Registrado
- 5 de Sep, 2019
He rage-quit a stream last week because he couldn’t sort the audio. Don’t give him too much credit.
- Registrado
- 22 de Oct, 2020
Dabbleverse certainly doesn’t keep Moomoo around because of his wit filled bullshit ‘moral’ faggotry. Then again, it’s Dabbleverse, so they could think that’s amazingly brilliant shit.
A dreaded sunny day
So I meet you at the Balldo Lair’s gates
Keats & Yeats are on your side
While weird lover Wilde is on mine
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 27 de Oct, 2021
Absent being given permission to do so, Nick's access of Aaron's chrome/ google/ whatever account is a Federal and a MN crime. Absent being given permission by Aaron to do so, it would also be a Federal (and MN) crime for Moody to do so. If Nick (lol) never looked at Aaron's account but gave it so someone else to do so, he's abetted a crime at a minimum.
I asked that great legal scholar, ChatGPT (lol), for a general analysis (for MN): (Query: If I log into my Google account on a friend's computer and forget to sign out, then they go to that account and read my personal history and email, then tell people about it, is that a crime in Minnesota?)
In Minnesota, your friend accessing your Gmail, browsing your history, or reading personal emails without your authorization may indeed be illegal under state law:
1. Unauthorized Computer Access (Minn. Stat. § 609.891)
- This law defines a crime as intentionally accessing a computer or electronic terminal without authorityen.wikipedia.org+10revisor.mn.gov+10brunolaw.com+10.
- Merely reading your emails or browsing your history qualifies as “gaining access to personal data,” which is classified as a gross misdemeanor — punishable by up to 364 days in jail and/or a fine up to $3,000 .
2. Computer or Electronic Data Theft (Minn. Stat. § 609.89)
- If your friend not only reads but also retains, copies, or publishes your data (e.g., tells others or distributes screenshots), that can be charged as data theft.
- A misdemeanor (≤90 days jail, ≤$1,000 fine) if the “value” is low, or
- A felony—up to 5 years in prison or a $10,000 fine—if the value exceeds $500 revisor.mn.gov.
3. Invasion of Privacy (Minn. Stat. § 609.746)
- There’s also a statute against using technology to invade someone’s privacy without consentmcdonoughlawfirm.com.
- Reading private emails or personal browsing history falls squarely within that protection, although it's less often used than the computer-access statutes.
Summary
Action Potential Charge Logging into your Google account (with your password) Not a crime Friend browsing your emails or history Gross misdemeanor for unauthorized access Friend tells others or copies your data Could be misdemeanor or felony under data theft statute Friend invaded your privacy Potential additional charge under invasion of privacy law
Next Steps
- If this happened to you, you may consider:
- Reporting it to local law enforcement or the prosecutor’s office.
- Consulting a Minnesota criminal-defense or civil attorney (some privacy violations may also support a civil lawsuit).
Yes—reading your private Gmail and browsing history without signing you out can be a crime in Minnesota, typically starting with a gross misdemeanor for unauthorized access, and potentially escalating to more serious charges if they retained or shared your data.
Takeaway
If Nick allowed someone else to do it (Query: What if that friend allowed someone else to access and review my email and browsing history?):
If your friend let someone else access your Google account (still logged in on their device) and that person read your emails or browsing history, Minnesota law still likely treats this as a criminal violation, and possibly even more serious. Here's how it breaks down:
The person your friend allowed to access your account could be charged with unauthorized computer access, because:
1.
Even if your friend didn’t “hack” anything, accessing someone’s private information without permission is illegal, regardless of whether you left the account open.
- You did not authorize them.
- They accessed private, non-public digital content (your email, browsing history).
Key Point: Consent to use a device (e.g., your friend’s computer) is not the same as consent to access a Google account that isn’t theirs.
Penalties (for each unauthorized person):
- Gross Misdemeanor: Up to 1 year in jail and/or $3,000 fine.
- May escalate to felony if data was shared or copied (see next).
If either your friend or the person they allowed to access your account read or shared personal emails or web history with others, that could fall under:
2.
- Sharing your private messages, even verbally or by screenshot, could qualify as unauthorized use or dissemination of private data.
- If they “retain, use, or disclose” that data, they may be charged — and this can be a felony if any harm results.
Even if your friend didn’t personally read or share your data but knowingly let someone else do it, they could be liable under aiding and abetting laws:
3.
- A person who “intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires” in the commission of a crime is criminally liable as a principal.
That means both your friend and the third party could be charged — potentially as if they each committed the same crime.
Imagine you log in at your friend’s house and forget to sign out. They:
Practical Example
That’s likely:
- Later notice your email is open.
- Let their sibling browse your messages.
- The sibling tells others what they read.
- Unauthorized access by the sibling (gross misdemeanor or felony).
- Aiding and abetting by your friend.
- Potential invasion of privacy and civil damages.
What You Can Do
- Document what was accessed, who viewed it, and who was told.
- Change your Google password and enable 2FA immediately.
- Consider contacting:
- Law enforcement (for a criminal complaint).
- A civil attorney (for a potential privacy or defamation claim).
Federally (Query: Would these actions also be a federal crime?):
I'm not a fan of AI for any real analysis, but it's a summary. I don't recall why this was referred solely to the Feds, because although of course the burden is on the prosecution to prove it, if there's evidence Nick accessed the account/ browser history/ email, and there's no evidence that authorization was given, it should be prosecutable both at the state and Fed levels. The statutes don't immediately appear to require a showing of harm.Yes — accessing someone’s email or personal online account without authorization, even if the account was left open, can also be a federal crime under U.S. law. Here's how it breaks down:
18 U.S.C. § 1030
1. Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
This is the main federal law that governs unauthorized access to computers and online accounts. It prohibits:
- Your Gmail or Google account was accessed by someone you did not authorize.
- They viewed, copied, or shared personal data (emails, browsing history).
- Your account was accessed through a device connected to the internet (which it was).
- A “protected computer” includes any computer or device connected to the internet — that covers phones, laptops, desktops, and Google servers.
- “Without authorization” includes even looking at someone else’s account that was left open, if you were not explicitly authorized to view it.
Penalties:
- Misdemeanor or felony depending on what was accessed and the harm done.
- They shared the contents,
- Caused emotional or reputational harm,
- Acted with malicious intent.
18 U.S.C. § 2701
2. Stored Communications Act (SCA)
The SCA protects the privacy of electronic communications stored online, including:
Under this law, it is illegal to:
- Emails,
- Google account data,
- Chat history, cloud files, and more.
- Your Gmail messages are stored by Google = a “communication service provider.”
- Someone accessing your Gmail without permission — even if the account was already logged in — violates the SCA.
- Sharing, saving, or screenshotting those emails can worsen the offense.
- Civil and criminal liability.
- Criminal penalties include up to 5 years in prison for first offenses.
Summary Table
Action Federal Crime? Laws Violated Friend accesses your email without consent CFAA + SCA Friend lets someone else do it Aiding and abetting CFAA/SCA That person shares your private info CFAA, SCA, possibly wire fraud or defamation You left the account open Not a defense — it doesn’t imply consent
If you're seriously considering reporting this:
- Document everything: texts, emails, witnesses, what was accessed/shared.
- File a police report locally (they can refer to federal authorities).
- Report to the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3): https://www.ic3.gov
- Consider a civil lawsuit under the SCA for damages, if applicable.
I asked if it mattered that this happened on the "friend's" computer (Query: Does it matter if it was their computer I was logged in on):
Great question — and yes, it's an important detail — but it does not give them the legal right to access your private account or let others do so, even though it was their computer.
Let’s break it down clearly:
Even though it was your friend’s computer, your Google account and its contents still belong to you. U.S. and Minnesota laws treat online accounts like Gmail as separate from the device used to access them.
Think of it this way:
- If you left a diary or journal on a friend’s coffee table, would it be legal for them to read it and share it? No.
- Same applies to your email account left open on their computer.
Under both the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Stored Communications Act (SCA):
Your consent to use their device is not the same as consent to access your email.
This comes up often in:
In all those situations, courts and statutes maintain that:
- Family or shared computers,
- Public libraries or work computers,
- Friends lending laptops or tablets.
- Each person's online account and data are protected.
- You retain an expectation of privacy, even if the account is left open.
Maybe slightly, but not much.
Legally:
So no — using their computer doesn’t give them a legal pass. It might complicate enforcement or raise questions of implied consent, but your legal protections — especially under federal law — still apply.
- You didn’t give explicit permission for them to read your messages.
- The law doesn’t require you to take perfect steps (like logging out) to preserve your rights.
- Courts have repeatedly found that unauthorized use is still unauthorized, even if the account was open.
Issue Does it matter legally? It was their computer No, they still can't access your account
You left your account logged in They let someone else access it Emails or history were shared
Aaron, ChatGPT is available to help create a timeline :
- Registrado
- 13 de Dic, 2022
Foolish and dumb as Aaron might be, a W for Nick is a W for evil. I find it utterly mystifying that the good burghers of Minnesota don't recognize this. It's why I find it so hard to shake the suspicion that they're all suckling on the withered old money teat of the Ma Rackets Crime Syndicate.
SigmaBalls
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 31 de Mayo, 2024
- Registrado
- 16 de Jul, 2023
Having a limited formal education in digital forensics and computer hacking, the notion that Nick needs to incriminate himself by admitting to anything in order for there to be a "prosecutable case" is baffling to me.
The real distinction is the one between having a "prosecutable case" and having a case worth prosecuting. Busting a crack den with children inside that's almost definitely being used for distribution is worth it. Adjudicating gay Internet drama at the federal level because one queer exposed his former fag lover's jerking off to Twister porn is not, even if it's a slam dunk case. From the prosecutor perspective, Nick's case, even if we hate to admit it, could be characterized as an isolated incident. Prosecuting it arguably doesn't prevent future criminality and therefore doesn't warrant the limited resources of prosecutors.
Even if Moody and Melton are IDF level ultra-hackers, Nick is not and Nick almost definitely permanently incriminated himself the moment he committed the crimes. He probably used the Google built-in mechanisms to extract account information so they'll know where and when it was extracted and it'd be trivial to establish that he wouldn't have had permission to extract that information. But that still requires some work, and even trivial work requires incentive.
There's no incentive here. No one at the agency is going to dap you up because you did the extra legwork on proving that homosexual lawyer humiliated his butt buddy to 20 onlookers. They care more about interstate commerce issues anyways. If it was an executive at Target whose account was left logged in and Nick accessed that for corporate espionage that we all found out about, he'd already be in cuffs. Same "crime" (hypothetically), different motivation to prosecute.
Circling back to Moody and Melton, allowing someone else to connect to the device and commit the crime does not prevent culpability. If you allow someone to connect to your device, you're authorizing their access, which would include access to Aaron's information. That's the same reason why if a pajeet scammer accesses your computer remotely and then drains your bank accounts, you can't do anything about it... because you foolishly authorized them to take your money. Same concept.
The real distinction is the one between having a "prosecutable case" and having a case worth prosecuting. Busting a crack den with children inside that's almost definitely being used for distribution is worth it. Adjudicating gay Internet drama at the federal level because one queer exposed his former fag lover's jerking off to Twister porn is not, even if it's a slam dunk case. From the prosecutor perspective, Nick's case, even if we hate to admit it, could be characterized as an isolated incident. Prosecuting it arguably doesn't prevent future criminality and therefore doesn't warrant the limited resources of prosecutors.
Even if Moody and Melton are IDF level ultra-hackers, Nick is not and Nick almost definitely permanently incriminated himself the moment he committed the crimes. He probably used the Google built-in mechanisms to extract account information so they'll know where and when it was extracted and it'd be trivial to establish that he wouldn't have had permission to extract that information. But that still requires some work, and even trivial work requires incentive.
There's no incentive here. No one at the agency is going to dap you up because you did the extra legwork on proving that homosexual lawyer humiliated his butt buddy to 20 onlookers. They care more about interstate commerce issues anyways. If it was an executive at Target whose account was left logged in and Nick accessed that for corporate espionage that we all found out about, he'd already be in cuffs. Same "crime" (hypothetically), different motivation to prosecute.
Circling back to Moody and Melton, allowing someone else to connect to the device and commit the crime does not prevent culpability. If you allow someone to connect to your device, you're authorizing their access, which would include access to Aaron's information. That's the same reason why if a pajeet scammer accesses your computer remotely and then drains your bank accounts, you can't do anything about it... because you foolishly authorized them to take your money. Same concept.
Every passing day I believe more that Nick is some Styxhexenhammer-tier Devil worshipper who wants to perform blood moon rituals to have their enemies killed. Even if Nick isn't literally doing that shit, his psyche is becoming one and the same as someone who does that shit. He has lost the love in his soul and subsists on hatred.
- Registrado
- 24 de Ago, 2024
- Registrado
- 21 de Ago, 2018
Minnesota's government at a local, county, and state level worships evil. Simple as.
- Registrado
- 24 de Ago, 2024
Sometimes the bad guys win in real life.
Red Dye #5
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 25 de Feb, 2024
As been said before. We may know a lot, the judge is just at their job
Edit: as in I mean it’s just some asshole trying to get through their day
Edit: as in I mean it’s just some asshole trying to get through their day
Última edición:
DiabeticSydePhil
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 12 de Dic, 2022
Agreed, but also so what?
Which isn't to say you're on the 'balldo Ws are the holocaust' camp (I don't think you are), but Nick getting a W over his ex-boyfriend isnt much of a W.
Dunking on Aaron does absolutely nothing to further the Balldo agenda. He doesn't gain anything, the fans won't be back, his brain cells are fried, he's stuck in a loveless marriage because his wife refuses to divorce him, his kids hate him, etc.
Nick is on the DSP perpetually sinking ship, there's no savaging it.
That being said, I think his conduct since the HRO was started might tilt things towards the judge siding with Aaron. Assuming its presented correctly (lol lmao, rainbow sticker, etc) Nick going around with other people to see if Aaron is at the gym/encouraging harassment is probably enough to get it granted.
And violating it while it was in effect should already be an issue, it just won't be because this weird retarded state is incompetent.