💀 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.

Friday hearing outcome?

  • DENIED!

    Głosy: 40 9,9%
  • Upheld against Patrick Melton only.

    Głosy: 14 3,5%
  • Upheld against Nicholas Rekieta only.

    Głosy: 12 3,0%
  • Another win for the toe!

    Głosy: 192 47,5%
  • Continuance...

    Głosy: 146 36,1%

  • Łączna liczba głosujących
    404
  • Ankieta zamknięta .
No. He's bitched about cops and sometimes courts or other lawyers, but he's never gone after the county or cities nearby. Barnes made that shit up from whole cloth. The concept of Nick actually doing work to investigate something is laughable. All he does is complain, and the most he's complained about were the Scandinavian incel prudes at his (former) church.
And when you take all that and put it up against his record as an attorney, what he's probably mostly salty about is the fact he simply sucks ass as an attorney. He just doesn't recognize his problem as such. His Ls are always the fault of other people. Barnes is handing him a cope that appeals to his ego.

Barnes: "It's because of the corruption, Nick! You would be a winner if not for that!"
Nick: "Yeah? I mean... YEAH! THAT DAMN CORRUPTION!"

And we're off to the races.
 
Unfortunate for the kids, since this whole thing is just going to embolden Nick to being an even bigger drunk/coke head the second the feds get off his ass. But boy is it going to be funny for us when he inevitably gets busted again
I was thinking about it earlier, considering how he'd be in the future and how his kids will remember this time in their lives.

This won't be "The time Daddy was arrested" or "The time we didn't have any clothes or food"

It'll be "The first time..."
 
Dear Nick:

We all individually hate you for about five minutes a day. The toll is pretty cheap.

You hate us all day, every day. Quite an investment.

Get clean, you ridiculous crack muppet. That’s how to make life suck less; there’s no winning against a decentralized mass of people who think you’re a piece of shit because you’re a piece of shit. The audience isn’t coming back.
 
Unfortunate for the kids, since this whole thing is just going to embolden Nick to being an even bigger drunk/coke head the second the feds get off his ass. But boy is it going to be funny for us when he inevitably gets busted again
The only lessons Nick learned are to hide his coke usage better and to keep the kids away from the church so the clergy can't see how neglected they are and report it to the cops.
 
The only lessons Nick learned is to hide his coke usage better and to keep the kids away from the church so the clergy can't see how neglected they are and report it to the cops.
The only reason he was caught was his weird insistence on "homeschooling" to present himself as some kind of fake trad dad, when in reality, he is a cucking, swinging, cocaine-addicted loser.

All the mandatory reporters who reported him were due to him doing his fake "trad dad" homeschooling BULLSHIT.
 
I'm talking about passive surveillance. A cop can watch you on a public street without a warrant. A cop can watch you on a public livestream without a warrant. Neither is like phone tapping, or otherwise invasive surveillance.
I think this falls into what police can do when investigating a crime. For Nick, they had a criminal complaint when they started looking at footage. That's different than just deciding to make Nick a project and watching hours of video looking for evidence of any crime. Watching the public video while investigating a possible crime makes the search "reasonable" and that is what negates the need for a warrant.

I think there is a legal difference between watching a public street and seeing you commit crime vs. watching you while you are on a public street. In SCOTUS Katz vs US, I believe the government installed a microphone in public telephone booth. They were targeting an individual and ruled the 4th amendment "protected people not places." That case established the "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine despite the microphone being in a public phone booth. I think the most recent ruling similar to this was US vs Jones where police put a GPS tracking device on a car. The location data was of the car in only public places on city streets. SCOTUS ruled that "reasonable expectation of privacy" was not applicable. GPS data tossed as evidence as it was a form of trespass.

In short, I think it's a stronger argument that watching public video in response to a criminal complaint is a reasonable search rather than just stating all public videos are allowed.
 
In short, I think it's a stronger argument that watching public video in response to a criminal complaint is a reasonable search rather than just stating all public videos are allowed.
They needed no cause to watch a public video deliberately and publicly broadcast, and even if they had no active investigation, they could have opened one just based on the content of the deranged cokestream.

In this case, they already had probable cause because of multiple witnesses telling mandatory reporters that this degenerate scumbag was obviously behaving in a criminal manner, neglecting his children, driving them around drunk off his ass, and dropping them off at school stinking, filthy, in the same clothes they'd been wearing for days, and starving.
 
I also have criticized his conduct after the case. Repeatedly. I do not believe a lawyer should trash-talk a client after the fact even when it does not directly violate ethical rules.

My guess is that it has to be a dispute over money, I think. I bet Barnes was badmouthing him because Snipes stiffed him on the bill.

Because it makes no sense. Who the hell would hire a lawyer who has a record of shittalking their ex-clients? Especially when their ex-client is a high profile media personality. Barnes has to have made the calculation that he'd make more money from letting people know that he'd acted for Snipes than he would have done from word of mouth recommendations to Snipes pals.

I can't think of any circumstances under which I'd hire Barnes to act as my lawyer.
 
My guess is that it has to be a dispute over money, I think. I bet Barnes was badmouthing him because Snipes stiffed him on the bill.

Because it makes no sense. Who the hell would hire a lawyer who has a record of shittalking their ex-clients? Especially when their ex-client is a high profile media personality. Barnes has to have made the calculation that he'd make more money from letting people know that he'd acted for Snipes than he would have done from word of mouth recommendations to Snipes pals.

I can't think of any circumstances under which I'd hire Barnes to act as my lawyer.
If you want to lose your case with dumbass appeals to le Constitooshun you would hire Barnes in a heartbeat
 
Refresh my memory: Is EWU the father-daughter abandoned places thing? The daughter is kinda hot? I think I may have seen a few of their videos a while ago. Are they doing tru-crime now or something? Seems odd they would be interested in Nick from what I remember seeing from them.
I thought EWU had always been a true crime channel, but upon checking their oldest videos lo' and behold they did used to make vids exploring abandoned places. Ig they pivoted to true crime after JCS got popular and even managed to get the guy who voiced JCS' vids as their full time narrator. Their stuff is ok, not the best of TC youtube, but enjoyable enough, and the sheer volume they put out makes it hard to ignore.
 
there’s no winning against a decentralized mass of people who think you’re a piece of shit because you’re a piece of shit. The audience isn’t coming back.
InHisOwnWords_Smug.PNG
Dear Nool,

I’m winning. I’m winning. I’M WINNING

Sincerely,
:fapcup::really: Esq.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole