🗑️ Trashfire MNPublicRecords CHIPS file on Rekieta's 9-year-old testing positive for cocaine - All parties are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
Wyróżnienie
Should ask Nick why his favorite movie is Pulp Fiction, and is it because he gives his kid an injection straight to the heart to keep them alive.
 
where's baldo powiedział(a):
damn, that argument always works great for trump, a small town non practicing youtube lawyer should have no problems. you got me.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I am not trying to argue that it is right or correct. But it has been used successfully before. Absolute peice of shit scumbags have gotten off on this particular technicality because evidence that was going to be used against them was leaked to the press before the trial started.
 
I actually don’t think it’s reasonable to blame Dick Masterson for this at this stage. Dick is still bad for his own reasons but Nick’s his own animal.
 
1718776442992.png
 
Journoscum powiedział(a):
Nick Rekeita is not a real celebrity. Not everybody in the state of Minnesota is gonna be aware of this latest wrinkle. You can easily find a whole load of people who have no idea who he is.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Even as small as his county is and as big a Habbenin' as this is on the Internet, I don't think you'd have that much trouble empaneling a jury who's never heard of any of this.
 
Doctor John B. Zyklon powiedział(a):
If the kids are w/ the grandparents, would it still show as non-descript foster care?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I believe so. From my experience in the foster system you can be with family AND be counted as in the system. I'm not in MN, but where I'm at family placements require the family to take classes and get licensed as a foster parent WHILE the kids are under there care.
 
Puboid powiedział(a):
I am not familiar at all with the legal system, but my layman's impression of this is that law pope and our wife are not making any effort to get the children back.
Wyświetl załącznik 6101684
Wyświetl załącznik 6101686Wyświetl załącznik 6101685
Not bothering to work with the foster care system, not bothering to file shit to get their kids back, is that correct? Again, not a lawyer.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Wow. There. In black and white. Choosing the drugs over the children. Both of them.
 
Journoscum powiedział(a):
Nick Rekeita is not a real celebrity. Not everybody in the state of Minnesota is gonna be aware of this latest wrinkle. You can easily find a whole load of people who have no idea who he is.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Australian newspapers were covering this. Rekieta ain't walking away as the same man, no matter the outcome of the trial
 
cybernurse1998 powiedział(a):
Which could cause an absolute scumbag to have the case thrown out and face 0 legal consequences for his horrendous actions
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
This is unconnected to his criminal case. Everything regarding his kids are after his arrest and civil. He faces no risk to his property, freedom or life by anything in the child welfare case (possibly child support, but still civil)

potatoflopper powiedział(a):
The 9 year old is the one that crawls in bed with nick and kayla right.... im guessing theres probubly alot of drugs and who knows what other substances... and liquids are in and on that bed
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
She was hungry. I bet they weren't particular about spoons, plates or straws. Probably using a plate for cocaine followed by letting a kid use the plate for a cookie and licking the plate afterward. Wouldn't be surprised if coke/cookie thing became a routine. "Here's a plate. Go get a cookie and bring them back up here for bedtime snack." Probably never washed the plate and used it for cocaine and cookies every day.
 
I'm going to repeat myself: Acquittal=/=Innocence

Nick's whole argument is that the government needs to prove its case, he'll defend himself in court, he hasn't been convicted yet, etc. But, especially in the US criminal law system, just because there isn't a criminal conviction doesn't mean whatever is being said didn't happen. There are plenty of cases where someone was acquitted of something they most likely did, where even jurors would say they thought the defendant probably did it, but it wasn't proven with available evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Doubt saves you from jail time, not from the truth of what happened in reality. It definitely doesn't save you from the court of public opinion.
 
Thesis: "Montegraph is a pedophile sex offender, sue me if you dare"-Nick
Antithesis: "I'm not a pedophile, that's slander, and I'm going to sue you"-Montegraph
Synthesis:
1000005391.jpg
 
I now assume that the "medical emergency" was this child ingesting a shit load of coke. A large quantity could still register months after substance use stops.

The idea that Nick would regulary give coke to his 8-year old (and only her) sort of beggars belief. He's a degenerate, but I want more evidence before going that far.

I am also interested to know what people at the Church have on him. Has this child been showing up to school stuff loopy? Was she completely out for the 2 weeks? Did she tell someone?

The warrant has the minimum evidence for probsble cause, but I wonder what more there is.
 
cybernurse1998 powiedział(a):
I am not trying to argue that it is right or correct. But it has been used successfully before. Absolute peice of shit scumbags have gotten off on this particular technicality because evidence that was going to be used against them was leaked to the press before the trial started.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
again, how does this evidence of child abuse get the possession charge thrown out? also, it's been posited in this thread that it's public record anyway–which would be like saying the arrest itself would taint the jury pool.
 
Wyróżnienie
Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
Wstecz
Top Na dole