💀 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.

[Scan_Lines]

Is this April?

Wyświetl załącznik 6034468

Hard to tell, I imagine only Nick has a real idea of what the back of her head looks like.

 

[Young_Griff]

Hard to tell, I imagine only Nick has a real idea of what the back of her head looks like.

*top of her head more like

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

Erm, simply don't let yourself get murked perhaps? There are circumstances where you have firsthand knowledge and don't need a jury. Also killing child abusers when the authorities fail to is in fact very civilized. What about when they're convicted but only get 2 years or have their sentence suspended?

You're either 15 or a third world sub-100 IQ retard if you don't understand why you yourself benefit from the rule of law and due process extended to even the most obviously guilty people. It reveals you are currently unfit to be among civilized white people. Go back to the Sudan where people accuse each other of crimes so they can "justifiably" bash their heads in and steal all of their wealth.

 

[Stupor Mario]

What the fuck does Joe gain from nose guarding this much!? We're reaching Dax levels of this shit.

My theory is that Ricky Rackets charmed these LawTubers the way narcs do, and these guys are experiencing cognitive dissonance. They thought Nick was their friend and that all of his charming lies were true. Now that's being challenged, and they're in denial.

Also, I think it's hard for people who are supposed to be intelligent to admit they've been bamboozled by a con artist they thought was their trustworthy friend. It's embarrassing, so again, some of these guys are still in denial.

 

[MrReeShopper]

What will be fun is she probably doesn't know about the *Vagina Vodka* rant yet.
...
Damit we really need the hearings livestreamed!

Perhaps this labial libation should be Christened "Vagodka"?

 

[Scan_Lines]

LEGAL MINDSET, LEGAL MINDSET will be streaming about the case in 45 minutes. I imagine he'll be going over the incident reports.

 

[zimzam88]

just watched the Nate stream, that fucking jew Lawgic actually shitting on the kids, saying they are not reliable and that "all kids say they are hungry" god damn dude...

I quit watching because I was getting MATI. Can you get me a timestamp for where he said that? I'll clip it.

 

[Harm]

No, kids don't.

Plus the detail they keep deliberately omitting is that the kids said they were hungry AND that they weren't being fed.

For some odd reason that last part keeps vanishing in their "facts based legal analysis." Huh.

 

[juniorAccount]

Hey guys, don't marry a crackwhore...

 

[Procrastinhater]

this point, I think there is definitely a red line. Judge Fischer should not be involved any further in the criminal case.

If not before, certainly after issuing the search warrant, Judge Fischer should have recused herself, and handed any future hearings and the trial itself off to another judge.

Would you think it's fair that the same judge you had a professional conflict with, gets to judge your defamation trial, be the subject of your highly inflammatory invective & criticism, and then subsequently the same week as your criticism, issue a criminal search warrant for your house and person, and then preside over your criminal trial too?

The problem with this, as others have stated, is this would allow anyone to effectively render themselves untrialable simply by insulting any Judge that presided over their case.
It was Nicks choice to be a vulgar drunken prick and insult the Judge handling his fucking civil case.
It was Nicks choice to neglect his kids and keep an ounce of coke in his house.

She was already his Judge for the civil case when he went on that fucking weirdo rant.
His choice.
Actions have consequences.
You can't allow someone to render themselves immune to prosecution by insulting the Judge, it's retarded.
He chose to be a prick.
Now let him live with it.

 

[NadeND-001]

I missed how Kurt changed his mind. I saw people saying he broke down on stream. What caused it? This thread moves so fast. It has no brakes.

Yesterday when he was live reading the warrant, also finding out that he wasnt in the kool kidz dm group that nick had

 

[Sharpeteer]

My theory is that Ricky Rackets charmed these LawTubers the way narcs do, and these guys are experiencing cognitive dissonance. They thought Nick was their friend and that all of his charming lies were true. Now that's being challenged, and they're in denial.

Also, I think it's hard for people who are supposed to be intelligent to admit they've been bamboozled by a con artist they thought was their trustworthy friend. It's embarrassing, so again, some of these guys are still in denial.

Despite us seeing him as the complete retard he is, he's a really good narcissist, and probably has the ability to charm most normal people over very easily, as narcissists often can. But there's a limit - you see the evidence in front of you that kids are being abused, you don't just excuse it away. I'm sure they wouldn't excuse it away if it were their kids, so why not Nick's?

Nick may have charmed them over at some point, but he looks exactly like the kind of junkie that stinks up every fast food place in your town that everyone wishes would just leave. Have some standards people.

“I can’t be expected to clean or boils eggs. Have you seen the size of my trust fund?”

Remember that conversation? That was fun. Wasn't even that long ago.

LEGAL MINDSET, LEGAL MINDSET will be streaming about the case in 45 minutes. I imagine he'll be going over the incident reports.

Hey Andrew, you still suck.

 

[TexOffender]

Here comes Lead Attorney to stream about Nick too.

 

[JackoVerde]

Plus the detail they keep deliberately omitting is that the kids said they were hungry AND that they weren't being fed.

For some odd reason that last part keeps vanishing in their "facts based legal analysis." Huh.

That’s obviously biased conjecture. Kids are always hungry and nick said he was buying 3k worth of snacks.

 

[Procrastinhater]

How is this even possible? They spend their entire working life surrounded by firearms

You'd be amazed how little the amount of range time a cop is required to put in to qualify.
Anyone who shoots as a hobby or especially in competitions is going to have way more range time than any but SWAT cops.

 

[Sweet Baby Kayla]

it's absolutely doable. back in the day when life was tough, kids routinely had to put in serious work around the home, including being responsible for taking care of their younger siblings to some degree.
the difference is that those kids were raised appropriately to be able to handle these responsibilities, whereas the rekieta kids apparently were pampered and had everything taken care of by mommy and the nanny. but then mommy falls down the coke hole and the nanny quits, now all of a sudden nothing is getting done and the kids have no idea how to deal with it since they were never trained or prepared for this situation.

tl;dr: a 16 year old is definitely capable of doing the laundry and cooking dinner for his siblings - if he has been taught and trained on how it's done. i think that's probably where a lot of these comments are coming from: "i was able to take care of these things at 16 so why shouldn't rekietas kids be able to do the same?"

If a normal (i.e.non-Rekieta) mom and dad just went out for the day, I’m sure the typical 16 yo could hold things down for themselves and their younger siblings. But being a kid in the Rekieta household over the last couple of years was likely traumatizing. And much worse over the last six months. Their formerly “merely” drunk dad and “merely” pill-popping mom are now coke fiends having orgies with the weird couple that moved in and who are all sharing a bed.

I assume the 16 yo is a good kid who loves his siblings. The fact that he wasn’t able to single-handedly keep all of his siblings properly fed, clothed, and cleaned might be because he is spoiled and doesn‘t know to do those things. Or he knows how, but there was no food, laundry detergent, or soap and shampoo in the house. Or he has the tools and the know-how, but he is too traumatized to be able to help.

 

[Strix454]

Plus the detail they keep deliberately omitting is that the kids said they were hungry AND that they weren't being fed.

For some odd reason that last part keeps vanishing in their "facts based legal analysis." Huh.

They will come back and deal with it. The standard response is typically that children can't be trusted as witnesses and can't be trusted to evaluate themselves in matters such as hunger. That if they are not clean or wearing clean clothes that its a decision made by the child. These arguments don't tend to work well in the legal system.

 

[KiwiFarmer9993!]

Hey guys, don't marry a crackwhore...

"But I can fix her"

 

[Sewer Rat]

a

I quit watching because I was getting MATI. Can you get me a timestamp for where he said that? I'll clip it.

at 49:40 from Nate's stream he starts with the whole "in defense of Nick" part, he acuses detractor of "being like CNN", he goes a little against the cops and then the whole kids thing

 

[JackoVerde]

They will come back and deal with it. The standard response is typically that children can't be trusted as witnesses and can't be trusted to evaluate themselves in matters such as hunger. That if they are not clean or wearing clean clothes that its a decision made by the child. These arguments don't tend to work well in the legal system.

Also a couple of his kids are women, and one wants to marry a boyband member but they aren’t catholic or Muslim. Would you trust someone who’s a child and even worse a women to tell the unbiased truth.