REkeita is pre coping because he knows he is going to lose and will have to waste more money trying to appeal to a higher court.
That profile is absolute cringe; "rights" [read: imaginary] of the one outweigh the needs of the many"???
Recommended in part because he is a lolibertarian with the usual views on muh constitution and willing to advance strange legal theories within the court system that many other attorneys might hesitate to push. White tends to take strange or doomed cases.
Speaking of which, some will recall that time that Lewis arguably risked discipline by
blabbing on Facebook about a client he'd "rather take a baseball bat to" while displaying on his screen that he was
researching the Winkowski v. Winkowski HRO case, which gave away that out of all and his and White's cases pending at the time, the client that Lewis would "rather take a baseball bat to" was
one Jesse Robert Barton, then under prosecution for multiple HRO violations that were sure to give him and White a CLE of sorts on many issues that would recur in the Imholte HRO cases commenced the following year. Since that time, there have been a few developments in the Barton case that may lend some insight into why this is just the legal team Nick would select for the First Amendment crusade that he says he has planned, and a bit of a sneak preview into the sorts of arguments they would make and how a "dry run" of those arguments turned out.
When moving to dismiss one of the counts under
Minnesota's disorderly conduct statute, in which pertinent language about
"offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others" has stood the test of time against constitutional challenges since
its adoption in 1963, the Barneswalker had the unmitigated gall to challenge the statute itself for being not only unconstitutional as applied, but even unconstitutional
on its face:
Aghast at such an attempt to kick a dead horse decades too late, the State cited case law on what should have seemed a well-settled issue by now:
...and in true Barneswalker fashion, his doomed First Amendment crusade was DENIED:
Granted, this facial challenge was to a different statute, but given that the
Minnesota HRO statute's language about
"intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another" is similarly vague, the Barneswalker can be expected to copy-paste the same arguments into briefing on Nick's almost SovCit-tier overbroad understanding of First Amendment protection available in the HRO context and the appeal that he has repeatedly threatened, likely with similar results. He and Nick were truly made for each other.