💀 Horrorcow Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta / "u/Early-Leopard-8351" - Polysubstance abuser, child doser, dog killer. "Lawtube pope" turned zesty Dabbleverse Redditor streamer. Swinger "whitebread ass nigga" who snuffs animals and visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold. Still not over his ex Aaron. Wife's bod worth $50.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Luna's expiration date is?

  • <1 year

    Votes: 158 22.6%
  • Around 2 years

    Votes: 278 39.8%
  • 3-5 years

    Votes: 94 13.4%
  • As long as a pug lives, Karen farmer.

    Votes: 169 24.2%

  • Total voters
    699
Craig from Side Scrollers ain't happy with Rekieta. Some of the harshest shit I have heard outside of KC and Aaron thus far.
Crazy that when you show Nick's actions to parents and normal people and not terminally online lolbertarians they immediately say that this degenerate is a giant pile of shit. What a mind-blowing concept!
 
Listening to Aaron's latest stream. Part 3 of @Sharpeteer 's Journey of Sir Balldolot is going to be an epic. There's some good material there.
I'm currently working on a short video somebody here requested and I loved the idea, then after that, I will start working on the Balldolot finale (Pt 3). It's pretty much written already.

Would you mind linking me the stream? I will say there's not a whole lot I can do with him since I killed the character lol. But I think Nick dreaming about Aaron while sleeping or something could open up an opportunity to poke fun at him some more.
 
Maybe he doesn't know what that word means or misspoke, then.
I took it as rhetorical, bordering on sarcastic.

i.e. The most civil way I can possibly express my emotions right now is "you're a piece of shit".

Poorly worded, but not outright mouth mush.
 
Yeah I was angry. I accept my tophats and concede the point.

After doing some reading regarding hair tests and reading other posts here, I think realistically what makes the most sense is, as many have speculated here, that the three day "medical emergency" that required "supervision" was the daughter accidentally consuming a very large amount of cocaine. The test result guide says the amounts found point to a "regular user" but people forget that the entire range band says "regular user or heavy binge user." I can believe a small child ingesting a very large quantity of cocaine in a single incident could pop up as "regular use" in a hair test four months later.

Additionally, as I mentioned in the other thread, I've recently read about certain kinds of shampoos and hair products can actually embed some contaminants in hair instead of washing them out, which, while it might not give a false positive, could increase the amount detected by the test.

I apologize for momentarily letting my emotions get out of hand. As a father of young children, I just absolutely cannot stand the thought of children being hurt. It genuinely makes me emotional. Please accept my sincere mea culpa.
I forgive you my son.
And at the very least you admitted more fault than Nick ever will.
 
When Barnes listed off the amendments he thought were violated during Nick's arrest on the Viva/Barnes stream, the very first stream Legal Mindset made after that he seemed like he was optimistic about Nick's case based on what Barnes said, but other lawyers who came on Legal Dicksucker's stream disagreed and said why, and you could literally see the change of mind dawn on Andrew as the stream went on.
I honestly do NOT understand how Barnes became so popular, much less regarded as a "Constitutional expert."

He represented Wesley Snipes once and got a mixed verdict on a tax evasion case. Big whoop.

From everything else I've read, he sucks ass. He got tossed off Rittenhouse, Nicholas Sandman wanted nothing to do with him, and he helped lose Alex Jones.

He feels like Ty Beard all over again. Fat gasbag.
 
Hey retard, you won’t believe this but if there was evidence of sexual assault that would have been mentioned in the paperwork.
The more likely situation is that a nine year old was wandering around putting things in their mouth while mommy and daddy were sleeping off a bender.
In the case of Nick there is unlikely to be obvious signs of sexual assault. His psychological profile (NPD, Machiavellian + sadistic tendencies as far as I can tell) is consistent with a predator who will engage in extensive grooming to control his victim. If there is sexual abuse she will likely believe it is part of a secret game she can't tell anyone about. Hopefully not true, however people should be ready for the possibility it is true. Nick has displayed intermittent periods of intense fascination with pedophilia coupled with pathologic tendencies common in pedophiles as well as alleged impotency with adult women. It could very well be a series of misinterpretations on my part but after years of watching the guy (and up until January 2023 genuinely liking him) I think the worst is quite possible
 
Legal Mindset - The Disastrous Return of Rekieta Law (LIVE) [q55q6CIcTps - 2224x1251 - 1h13m22s].png
 
I honestly do NOT understand how Barnes became so popular, much less regarded as a "Constitutional expert."
Barnes strategy seems to be short-sightely injecting himself into high-profile cases well out of his depth and playing the role of some bigshot confidence man, for all the prestige and decorum he attempts to exude, he's really just a retarded blowhard that'll sooner suggest you're a pedophile (like he did to legal mindset) than engage with the argument. He's just another retard like Ralph, but he can hold his tongue a little better.
 
Is his lawyer a public defender? Because I can't see a private lawyer taking this case if he's going to keep fucking it up online like he has with his lawsuit. Granted maybe they don't know yet what kinda disaster of a client just retained them. They must now.
Lawyers love clients like Nck, or at least their money. They can trust them to fuck up constantly and be an endless source of billable hours, and on top of that insist on doomed but expensive motion practice.
 
Lawyers love clients like Nck, or at least their money. They can trust them to fuck up constantly and be an endless source of billable hours, and on top of that insist on doomed but expensive motion practice.
Not only that, but he's so irreparably fucked from the start that even a total loss won't reflect poorly on him.
 
In the case of Nick there is unlikely to be obvious signs of sexual assault. His psychological profile (NPD, Machiavellian + sadistic tendencies as far as I can tell) is consistent with a predator who will engage in extensive grooming to control his victim. If there is sexual abuse she will likely believe it is part of a secret game she can't tell anyone about. Hopefully not true, however people should be ready for the possibility it is true. Nick has displayed intermittent periods of intense fascination with pedophilia coupled with pathologic tendencies common in pedophiles as well as alleged impotency with adult women. It could very well be a series of misinterpretations on my part but after years of watching the guy (and up until January 2023 genuinely liking him) I think the worst is quite possible
I’m not exactly his biggest fan at the moment but I would assume that if they drug test the children they would also interview them and do an at least cursory physical examination. Also, had anything been found that indicates CSA Nick would likely have those charges as well unless I completely misunderstand how these things work.
Nick’s a complete degenerate and things are only going to get worse as more info comes out, but I doubt he is a child molester, much less an incestuous one who would target a nine year old.
 
You just don't want to cut off or damage any possible strategy or assertion later or risk having your words used against you.
They have enough to eviscerate him on cross just from his streams. Anything impeaching his honesty is relevant and admissible under one or more hearsay exceptions.
 
(Iirc, Admissions against interest by a criminal defendant can be admissible as evidence if the declarant was aware at the time of the statement that it was against his penal, the truth of the statement is corroborated by non-hearsay evidence, and the declarant is "unavailable to testify," which includes exercising his right not to testify. See MN Rules of Evidence Rule 804b3 and the commentary.)
You wouldn't even reach the 803 or 804 exceptions, 801 exempts opposing party statements from hearsay.
 
Back
Top Bottom