💀 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.

[Spaded Dave]

Its never good to tell off a judge in his situation. Its even worse because its a rural area in the literal middle of nowhere. The total number of judges is going to be really small and everyone is going to know everyone else in the legal system there.

I find it interesting that he is telling off a judge after the verdict for this woman. It's not really in defense of his client since the case was over, and it likely would have been to the detriment of his client had it not been. He told off a judge because she was too mean to someone who intentionally and maliciously destroyed lives for her own greed. This isn't some victimless traffic offense that the judge went overboard on. Everyone deserves a defense but even if you are, as you should be, vigorously defending your client you should know in the back of your mind she deserved everything the judge did to her.

So is this a case of Nick's teenage anti-authority bullshit stretching itself to utterly retarded levels? Or is it a case of Nick's ego getting so out of control that he can't handle losing a case that he should have known was a lost cause from the start?

Edit: Adding link for anyone interested, correct me if this is the wrong case. https://www.wctrib.com/news/bookkee...don-minnesota-businesses-to-serve-prison-time

 

[Kopasea]

I find it interesting that he is telling off a judge after the verdict for this woman. It's not really in defense of his client since the case was over, and it likely would have been to the detriment of his client had it not been. He told off a judge because she was too mean to someone who intentionally and maliciously destroyed lives for her own greed. This isn't some victimless traffic offense that the judge went overboard on. Everyone deserves a defense but even if you are, as you should be, vigorously defending your client you should know in the back of your mind she deserved everything the judge did to her.

So is this a case of Nick's teenage anti-authority bullshit stretching itself to utterly retarded levels? Or is it a case of Nick's ego getting so out of control that he can't handle losing a case that he should have known was a lost cause from the start?

Edit: Adding link for anyone interested, correct me if this is the wrong case. https://www.wctrib.com/news/bookkee...don-minnesota-businesses-to-serve-prison-time

Dunno if this is Nick's case or not, but if it is why would he take this on pro-bono? I understand as a defense attorney sometimes you have to defend people you find reprehensible, but I cannot understand taking on a pro-bono case where the client was a horrible person.

 

[Spaded Dave]

Dunno if this is Nick's case or not, but if it is why would he take this on pro-bono? I understand as a defense attorney sometimes you have to defend people you find reprehensible, but I cannot understand taking on a pro-bono case where the client was a horrible person.

I'm not going to speculate, instead I'm going to leave this here and let other people speculate.

 

[Kars den Karb]

I find it interesting that he is telling off a judge after the verdict for this woman. It's not really in defense of his client since the case was over, and it likely would have been to the detriment of his client had it not been. He told off a judge because she was too mean to someone who intentionally and maliciously destroyed lives for her own greed. This isn't some victimless traffic offense that the judge went overboard on. Everyone deserves a defense but even if you are, as you should be, vigorously defending your client you should know in the back of your mind she deserved everything the judge did to her.

So is this a case of Nick's teenage anti-authority bullshit stretching itself to utterly retarded levels? Or is it a case of Nick's ego getting so out of control that he can't handle losing a case that he should have known was a lost cause from the start?

Edit: Adding link for anyone interested, correct me if this is the wrong case. https://www.wctrib.com/news/bookkee...don-minnesota-businesses-to-serve-prison-time

Spoiler: Case details

In victim impact statements, Cheyne Wachtler and Nathan Wachtler described how they each began working for $1,200 a week and had to pare their wages to $500, then $200, and eventually nothing as the companies failed. They spoke to the pain of losing employees who were truly friends.

[...]

The prosecutor said she reviewed a Capital One credit card for a 54-month period and tallied total purchases of $523,627.85, with the Wachtlers paying $489,075.93 of the amount. Kinney cited expenditures on the card for everything from the Wisconsin Dells and Europe Rail to Ticketmaster, Amazon, Universal Studio Vacations and Broadway Across America.

Hmmm yeah uh not a lot to sympathize with here. The defendant claimed she was trying to salvage her marriage after her husband came out of the closet.

 

[Roach Toad]

Dunno if this is Nick's case or not, but if it is why would he take this on pro-bono?

My memory is that He knew the woman beforehand and done the case as a favor knowing ahead of time She was going to plead guilty.

 

[Kopasea]

My memory is that He knew the woman beforehand and done the case as a favor knowing ahead of time She was going to plead guilty.

Maybe this was the church he was attending?

 

[Strix454]

Dunno if this is Nick's case or not, but if it is why would he take this on pro-bono? I understand as a defense attorney sometimes you have to defend people you find reprehensible, but I cannot understand taking on a pro-bono case where the client was a horrible person.

Well. If it is his case......

"Daniel told the court that she had stolen the money in an attempt to keep her marriage after learning of her husband’s same-sex attraction and infidelity."

And even better yet:

"As Daniel was a minister’s wife, “we had full faith and confidence” in her, "

Seems like Nick's kind of woman.

 

[Bitcoin Henchman]

I find it interesting that he is telling off a judge after the verdict for this woman. It's not really in defense of his client since the case was over, and it likely would have been to the detriment of his client had it not been. He told off a judge because she was too mean to someone who intentionally and maliciously destroyed lives for her own greed. This isn't some victimless traffic offense that the judge went overboard on. Everyone deserves a defense but even if you are, as you should be, vigorously defending your client you should know in the back of your mind she deserved everything the judge did to her.

So is this a case of Nick's teenage anti-authority bullshit stretching itself to utterly retarded levels? Or is it a case of Nick's ego getting so out of control that he can't handle losing a case that he should have known was a lost cause from the start?

Edit: Adding link for anyone interested, correct me if this is the wrong case. https://www.wctrib.com/news/bookkee...don-minnesota-businesses-to-serve-prison-time

If memory serves, Nick said he waited until the court had cleared and informed her after that he was pro-bono, he I think even said he wasn't rude about it but it was still sure to infuriate her. Furthermore, in Nick's defense, he had the client for 2+ years I think he said, talking to her often and becoming friendly with her, so that may have been why he was inclined to say something to the judge.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Monty's lawyer claims to have uploaded video of Nick claiming that Monty "has always been into sucking little boys cocks." If that's true, surely that meets the bar for sufficiently defamatory and specific?

Am I missing something? Is Rackets claiming he didn't say such a thing? Or is he going for truth as a defence here?

His counterargument would be that "Montegraph has always been into sucking little boys' cocks" is an opinion statement, and was not intended to convey any factual clam that Montegraph has ever actually done that, only that Nick thinks that Montegraph is turned on by little boys and by the thought of sucking their cocks.

It has to be a factual claim to be defamatory. Opinions can't be defamatory.

 

[Swole McPole]

His counterargument would be that "Montegraph has always been into sucking little boys' cocks" is an opinion statement, and was not intended to convey any factual clam that Montegraph has ever actually done that, only that Nick thinks that Montegraph is turned on by little boys and by the thought of sucking their cocks.

It has to be a factual claim to be defamatory. Opinions can't be defamatory.

Ah, the Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow defence? It wouldn't wash here in the UK. We'd have his ass in debtor's prison before his feet even touched the ground.

I'd assume Amber Heard would have tried a similar tack (all that waffling about 'my truth') and it didn't wash for her in Virginia either. So probably not quite as cut and dried as Rekeita would like to think?

If I'd said it, I'd be looking to settle.

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

Ah, the Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow defence? It wouldn't wash here in the UK. We'd have his ass in debtor's prison before his feet even touched the ground.

Throwing the guy that owes you buttloads of money into prison always seemed short sighted to me.


Now can someone explain to me why in the fuck Nick would try to retain Marc Randazza for Monty's dumb as fuck lawsuit? The only thing I can think of is that it potentially puts Nick on Randazza's radar as a potential guest which would have been fine in the past, but Hippy Nick will absolutely bungle the interview with sex talk.

 

[sum ting wong]

Throwing the guy that owes you buttloads of money into prison always seemed short sighted to me.


Now can someone explain to me why in the fuck Nick would try to retain Marc Randazza for Monty's dumb as fuck lawsuit? The only thing I can think of is that it potentially puts Nick on Randazza's radar as a potential guest which would have been fine in the past, but Hippy Nick will absolutely bungle the interview with sex talk.

"Hehehe, uhh soo Randazza, question from the chat. Balls or no balls? No context, just answer the question. No balls huh, well ok I guess. Have you ever heard of the balldo? Look I've got it right here, you just stretch it out like this...."

 

[Kopasea]

Throwing the guy that owes you buttloads of money into prison always seemed short sighted to me.


Now can someone explain to me why in the fuck Nick would try to retain Marc Randazza for Monty's dumb as fuck lawsuit? The only thing I can think of is that it potentially puts Nick on Randazza's radar as a potential guest which would have been fine in the past, but Hippy Nick will absolutely bungle the interview with sex talk.

I wonder if he will try to use Randazza for the Minneapolis bar situation he got himself into

 

[Pomniman]

Camelot seems to be a coomer.

I tried listening to a couple of coomalot streams as background noise about a year ago. His kinship with Cuckeita probably stems from the fact that he's also a whiny bitch who'll sit there crying about haters and the youtube algorithm for like 2 hours.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Ah, the Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow defence? It wouldn't wash here in the UK. We'd have his ass in debtor's prison before his feet even touched the ground.

I'd assume Amber Heard would have tried a similar tack (all that waffling about 'my truth') and it didn't wash for her in Virginia either. So probably not quite as cut and dried as Rekeita would like to think?

If I'd said it, I'd be looking to settle.

No... that would be if I said Rekieta Law frequently engages in hyperbole and comedy and that is why none of his viewers would reasonably interpret his statement as an allegation of fact. Which, in Nick's case, would also be a valid argument (and the plaintiff's own filings have teed it up for him to make).

But even if you ignore the fact that Nick is known for engaging in hyperbole and comedy, the statement itself was not an allegation of fact, it was an opinion. Unless you can show some context where Nick indicates that he has reasons to believe that the matter in question has actually happened, accusing Monty of being "into" it is unprovable. Facts have to be provable.

In Maddow's case, she was sued for saying "in this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda."

 

[talk talk talk]

Now can someone explain to me why in the fuck Nick would try to retain Marc Randazza for Monty's dumb as fuck lawsuit? The only thing I can think of is that it potentially puts Nick on Randazza's radar as a potential guest which would have been fine in the past, but Hippy Nick will absolutely bungle the interview with sex talk.

It's Nick being dick-swinging nigger-rich. Same thinking that had him buy a Mustang GT and try to drive it off the lot in a Minnesota winter.

I wonder if he will try to use Randazza for the Minneapolis bar situation he got himself into

Probably, because he is just that full of himself.

There are like five guys in MN who specialize in representing other lawyers before the Board. They are all low-key grinders who do nothing but save lawyer's butts when they've fucked up.

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

I wonder if he will try to use Randazza for the Minneapolis bar situation he got himself into

See that makes FAR more sense which makes me wonder if the farms is getting its wires crossed or Nick is being obtuse on purpose making "factual" statements, but the context leads you to think something different. Fucking lawyers.

Also, I think in the past Nick has explained that in Minnesota shit works weirdly in that you can theoretically have a butt load of motions filed just with the opposing party, but it only goes to the court when something needs to be enforced. Did my brain melt or is there any truth to this?

 

[Yandex Captcha Solver]

Had to take my union mandated days off from collecting from Locals: A Dating and Seething Site™. Went through and captured primarily the balldo captain interaction's within chat up until last night's chats which I'll go through later.

In Regards to Elissa

Spoiler: In regards to Claire

Just straight factually wrong at this point as proven by autists.

There is a slight difference between "a joke" and using it with three rings to fuck someone. It was a joke because it was retarded and whoever would use one would be retarded and sad.

Null is misinformed once again, "Pull up assumes the crashing premise." Arguing with fans, losing subs, locals being a timebomb, is just an incorrect assessment.

If you hide under a rock, the criticism doesn't exist.

Remember, this is the guy that says you aren't a simp if you thirst post in chat

Spoiler: Thots, Simps, and a Fat "Person's" Hand

Nick regualrly only welcomes certain females in the chat, nothing weird to see. I've seen it before, don't know if I captured it before though, so here you go.

Spoiler: Full Nick log from aftershow Friday to the chat started last night

 

[Phony Chicken]

Null is misinformed once again, "Pull up assumes the crashing premise." Arguing with fans, losing subs, locals being a timebomb, is just an incorrect assessment.
Wyświetl załącznik 4278954
If you hide under a rock, the criticism doesn't exist.

Interesting that he refers to him by his last name there instead of Null or Josh. I can't recall ever seeing or hearing him do that before. Kinda like he's a little pissed.

 

[Pomniman]

Nick regualrly only welcomes certain females in the chat, nothing weird to see. I've seen it before, don't know if I captured it before though, so here you go.

That one bitch posting her pawprinted up ass and unwashed asscrack... just grimy. This is getting into scat fetishist-tier degeneracy.