💀 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.

[Soapmore]

This was covered in some of the scientific papers. All the amounts and limits for the testing are based on adult weights, metabolisms, etc, and are empirical based on interviews. They don't really have a cohort of 9 y/o coke users so while it was at 10x the reportable limit, they don't really know how much cocaine a child would have done to get that level. For adults, the levels correlated to regular, long term use but it could be substantially less for children. They just didn't know.

I agree, and not just due to size and weight, but children's differences in metabolism. For me, the moment I heard the pillow tested positive, the pillow on the drug bed with the stuffed animals by it, I imagined the child breathing deeply during sleep, for hours and perhaps over several days before the arrest and drug tests. I think it might have been sufficient. ...

...but, everything else I know about this mendacious degenerate child abuser Nicholas Rekieta tells me his direct dosing for whatever maniacal reason will not surprise me when it's proven. His apparent attempt to get ahead of the drug test results really paints the picture.

 

[Kosher Dill]

For me, the moment I heard the pillow tested positive, the pillow on the drug bed with the stuffed animals by it

If that pillow had enough coke in it to get a kid high, Nick would have long since have been a literal pillowbiter as well as a figurative one.

 

[Gothic Runes]

Nick has told a story in which Judge Fischer held it against a client of Nick's that she paid for an attorney. He also claimed that his client's family were barred from the courtroom and she didn't get to see her children before being taken into custody. It turns out he was telling the truth!

W-why is this account gray?

 

[CoomerTine]

Nick actually looks worse now that he’s “sober”

 

[Red Frida]

Also she didn't pay for an attorney. Apparently Nick was pro bono. I have no idea how this arrangement came about. But instead of properly objecting to this in court, he confronted and chimped out at the judge AFTER the hearing instead of getting it on the record for a possible appeal. Pure incompetence and malpractice.

Unintentionally this was the most based thing Nick did, was fuck this scumbag over and ruin her chances of appeal.
Only better outcome would have been if he were disciplined for malpractice afterwards too.

 

[StarTrak]

With Nick's views of how awesome it is to use cocaine to get sex from women, I wonder if Kayla's ever done that, either on her own or at Nick's urging

Nick was the facilitator, but Kayla was there too, she really likes women.

 

[Buster Bloodvessel]

Again with this shit:

What I hate most about Nick is how he tries to explain away his 8 year old testing 10x the cut-off for coke rather than go with the energy he uses to humiliate Kurt/Aaron into finding how she got it like any normal parent would.
---
If Comedy Central did a Cheers/Seinfeld mash-up called the Rekieta Bunch

Kurt would be Norm
Aaron: Woody
Nick: Newman/George/Cliff
Kayla: Karla/Elaine

Edit: I'll add that Nick is Al Bundyesk in his endless bragging of when he made 3 touchdowns in one game while married to a waste of a human life life wife, a Wanker...leave a tip, dont bother to thank her.

 

[demicolon]

It is amaaaazing how much smaller the pickle Rob Roy would be in right now if only he kept his whore mouth shut during arrest and subsequent questioning by authorities.

The Law Pope of Minnesota, everyone.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Even Kayla thinks Kayla is a whore, pretty hard to sue someone who agrees with you.

I am also sure there would be some leaks of communications to undermine the claims if Nick ever did bring suit. There are a lot of women (and a few men) sitting on some DM conversations .

"If all of these acts were committed in the same six-month period under the sentencing guidelines and how Minnesota aggregates this type of crime, the presumptive sentence would actually be a stay of execution under the guidelines." - Nick Rekieta, talking about a case involving actions between 2014 and 2019.

Great job, Nick. If the circumstances were very different, the punishment would be very different. His online penchant for irrelevant arguments and obfuscation was also a professional one.

I do not know why, but I was immediately remembered of his argument against Kurt's comments. 'So she is 17 one day and 18 the next, so now it is OK to tuck her? what changed?' (Paraphrased)

Also the mlre recent, 'I would not have been arrested if we just did more cocaine!'

Bottom line: Nick plays fast and loose with facts when it suits him.

This is not a motion, it's a sentencing hearing where Nick asked for downward departure (i.e. a sentence lower than what the sentencing guidelines suggest) on the time his client would be sentenced. Judges are generally not tonally neutral when delivering a sentencing. The judge is supposed to provide rationale for the imposition of the sentence and that often involves a moral condemnation of the person's character and/or why they lack mitigating factors that would justify a lesser sentence.

I don't mean to be glib, and maybe judges should be a little more even-toned, but in practice, many are not. I would go as far as to say that most are not, and many judges are far more fire and brimstone than Fischer was here. Sentencing hearings across the country will generally be similar in tone to this one.

I think some people do like moralising in a judge's sentencing statement, but only if they agree with it in full. Surely, if a law is moral you would want it to be applied and adjudicated morally? That's what the sentencing statement is for, explaining the judge's reasoning in full. "I find this aggravating, I find this mitigating, for all those reasons etc."

As philosophical question (because I am doing some reading) many would say that the compulsion of law is intended to affect the condemned spirit to provode the moral motivation to avoid evil and self-regulate. If one believes some manner of this, the moralising is not unexpected.

Or they could just be a power-hungry cunt.

But the irony that Nick never mentions is the misconduct the judge got called out over and retired over. Fischer hated the KCHHS children services group. She called them out just like Nick did. If Nick is right about KCHHS, then Fischer was right.

Nick did critique the judge before his arrest and her legal de-frocking--just not for the correctly indictable things.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm clearly biased against Nick, but his monologue begging for mercy for his client reminds me of "People have always told me I'm smart". I can't explain why, the arguments aren't really similar, but something about it is so clearly not going to be effective against a normal person that they seem the same to me.


Though my favorite one is this

It reminds me of him claiming his eldest would act as a safety check on their drug use and how impossible it was for drug results being due to their actions and had ro be from another source.

He never really changes his coping strategy, and it is consistently illogical.

W-why is this account gray?

It is brand new today and only has 1 post.

 

[TherapyMan]

I'm not a lawyer and I'm clearly biased against Nick, but his monologue begging for mercy for his client reminds me of "People have always told me I'm smart". I can't explain why, the arguments aren't really similar, but something about it is so clearly not going to be effective against a normal person that they seem the same to me.

Nick seems to have a tin ear in terms of how to present argument. In theory, Nick's going through all the standard points: my client cooperated quickly, my client regrets doing the crime, my client is taking steps to make the victim whole again, my client has behaved well while incarcerated, my client won't reoffend, etc. etc. but the manner in which he presents it comes across as completely out of touch, noncommittal to admitting any wrong specifically, and even somewhat petulant.

For example, when Nick talks about how his client has been cooperative, Nick states that he could have gummed up the entire case by fighting everything procedurally from start to finish, but chose not to do so. Instead of framing his client come across as cooperative, Nick instead seems to be implying that his client should be given credit for not wasting the Court's time on meritless challenges. The tone is "I could have made this much more difficult, but chose not to," which comes across as rubbing it in the Court's face. Even if this is technically correct, a better lawyer would have framed it in a way that demonstrates the good qualities of his client, rather than Nick's apparent magnanimity in not wasting everyone's time.

You don't like it because it's essentially a string of non sequitur taped together with Nick's unconvincing demeanor. My client can't afford to reoffend, you see, because she got caught, it was really embarrassing to some people, and the people that didn't detect it the first time are the same people who will be watching out for it again.

Saying your client "can't afford" to reoffend after stealing $400K is such optically bad phrasing that I am surprised the judge didn't interrupt him just on that basis. But Nick's follow up on that sentence says a whole lot of nothing.

 

[AltisticRight]

Rekieta is someone who would claim to be a member of the British Royal Family after an onlyfans whore called him "King"

He sounds like the type of tool who would unironically buy Established Titles scam certificates.

 

[TrainWreckWatcher]

Just use your imagination:

Ver archivo adjunto 8251776

Hey, who let Kayla speak at the hearing?

Ver archivo adjunto 8251753

"My husband wanted to suck cock so it was okay for me to steal other people's money and ruin their lives."
That's one hell of an argument for "I was having a bad day."

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

He sounds like the type of tool who would unironically buy Established Titles scam certificates.

Didn't he sell those (ok, run ads for those) on Rumble for a few weeks?

 

[AnOminous]

You don't like it because it's essentially a string of non sequitur taped together with Nick's unconvincing demeanor. My client can't afford to reoffend, you see, because she got caught, it was really embarrassing to some people, and the people that didn't detect it the first time are the same people who will be watching out for it again.

Not only is it a bad argument, but he was asking for a completely ridiculous result, a noncustodial sentence. That wasn't going to happen. Yet another case of Nick being unable to read the room. Or maybe he just thought it was weird and funny to send his client up the river (possibly so he could have her gay husband to himself).

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

completely out of touch, noncommittal to admitting any wrong specifically, and even somewhat petulant.

Well, that's Nick in a nutshell. Except for the "somewhat"; he is perpetually, critically petulant.

Saying your client "can't afford" to reoffend after stealing $400K is such optically bad phrasing that I am surprised the judge didn't interrupt him just on that basis.

Iirc, the Court also noted her many theme park vacations and her long Italian vacation (during which absence her embezzlement was discovered). She pleaded "I paid for my son's college" or something like that, but the prosecution had the literal receipts.

His request for a noncustodial sentence was impertinent, at best, but I think even moreso just stupid. She was charged with over 40 crimes, with only the 5 felonies surviving to sentencing. He very poorly counseled her if she thought she might get a hand-slap.

I was highly amused to see (I posted it awhile ago) that after she was released, she received a parking ticket ...right by a courthouse (Hennepin County, iirc). Her utter lack of any judgment explains why she retained Rekieta.

 

[Potentially Criminal]

Are you Polish Sean? Because the only people who know 1,001 Nights are Poles who grew up reading it in their school reader.

My parents just read to us alot as kids.

GET OUT OF MY WORKPLACE ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE! WHAT'S YOUR PROBABLE CAUSE? YOU HAVE NO PROBABLE CAUSE!

Ver archivo adjunto 8251760

I'm not a lawyer and I'm clearly biased against Nick, but his monologue begging for mercy for his client reminds me of "People have always told me I'm smart". I can't explain why, the arguments aren't really similar, but something about it is so clearly not going to be effective against a normal person that they seem the same to me.



Though my favorite one is this



Because the Judge smacks him down for it

His statements aren't that outlandish. Having been in similar situations with a client (and watched other attorneys) where the question is merely, how long are they going to prison vs. prison or probation, I don't find too much to be wrong here. Maybe I'd say things differently but he didn't make things worse for his client.

The only thing I could fault him for is not demanding that the judge be recused when she started commenting on the fact that she had retained counsel. Those comments were clearly inappropriate and show bias.

Would getting a new judge have really changed the ultimate outcome at all? Honestly, probably not in the sense that she's still going to prison, I could see situations where it's a little bit lesser of a sentence, but overall, his client was still going to be taking a ride.

 

[waffle]

Would getting a new judge have really changed the ultimate outcome at all? Honestly, probably not in the sense that she's still going to prison, I could see situations where it's a little bit lesser of a sentence, but overall, his client was still going to be taking a ride

We both know that that is most of the magic of criminal defense, though. Almost all these guys (and gals) are clearly guilty and it's all about what's gonna happen. Nick has negative trade-craft.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

The only thing I could fault him for is not demanding that the judge be recused when she started commenting on the fact that she had retained counsel.

Obviously IANAL but she specifically went after her for having privately retained representation. I find this confusing. Was she eligible for a public defender? And the judge would rather have the taxpayer foot the bill for defending this lowlife?

 

[Potentially Cat Mom]

Nick was the facilitator, but Kayla was there too, she really likes women.

So what then was the final straw with April? Did she feel like she was being replaced? Ignored?

 

[Swole McPole]

Obviously IANAL but she specifically went after her for having privately retained representation. I find this confusing. Was she eligible for a public defender? And the judge would rather have the taxpayer foot the bill for defending this lowlife?

I'm pretty sure Judge Pussy Liquor had gotten the impression that this woman who had robbed a family business into bankruptcy was using her ill-gotten gains to pay Rekieta to defend her.

Joke's on her though. Nobody in their right mind would ever pay Rekieta to act as their attorney. Not even if they were facing a long prison sentence. In fact, ESPECIALLY if they were facing a long prison sentence.