💀 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
IMG_7865.jpeg

>I’m that mom teehee

This is making me MATI.
 
Strix454 said:
Nick claims in the documents that one of his "hearings" was broadcast by someone associated with the prosecution and that it was someone in the state of Minnesota. Anyone have any idea what he was talking about?

He raises as conspiracy hypothetical to the judge. "If I someday knew that someone had committed a very specific crime which I will now detail but have no proof of, where would report that conspiracy/crime". Very dumb
Click to expand...
1722487645466.png
1722487660664.png
This has got to be Aaron he's trying to rat on right?

EDIT:
Aaron and Geno watch through Nick's arraignment here. I can't think of anyone other than Aaron he could be talking about.
 
Last edited:
PG.6-7

Is this Ms. Weber person implying that the "older children" need their parents more than the younger ones? Why? Shouldn't the two sons be more independent?

I mean after all, this is supposed to be all their fault. What, with not getting jobs to pay all the bills and raise their siblings and all that.

ETA: OK one of the children was actually present in court that day. The oldest one maybe?
 
Nick just can't resist trying to gaslight during the emergency protective hearing. He makes a speech attempting to put material and conclusions into the country report on the children that are not there. Worse of all for Nick, he seems to be clearly acting here as if he knows one of the children is going to test positive for cocaine or has already tested positive for cocaine.

“Also, I would like to indicate that the that the petition drafted by the county itself indicates that the children were in no knowledge of any drugs being in the home and are not aware of any use, and any testing of the children that would result in drug use according to the children would be because of secondary exposure from some other source”

----
edit - on second thought, I'm not totally sure if Nick is saying this before or after the test result for the child came back. If it was before, its horrific.
 
Mourning_Cloak said:
PG.6-7

Is this Ms. Weber person implying that the "older children" need their parents more than the younger ones? Why? Shouldn't the two sons be more independent?

I mean after all, this is supposed to be all their fault. What, with not getting jobs to pay all the bills and raise their siblings and all that.

ETA: OK one of the children was actually present in court that day. The oldest one maybe?
Click to expand...
weber.PNG
justatalk.png
Nick's attorney wants to make sure the parents have a chance to intimidate talk to the boys to make sure they're keeping quiet doing alright in this stressful situation.
oldest.PNG
It was the oldest.

cocaine.PNG
'The kids would only test positive for someone else's drugs' he said before the test results even came back.
 
Last edited:
Strix454 said:
Worse of all for Nick, he seems to be clearly acting here as if he knows one of the children is going to test positive for cocaine.
Click to expand...
Yes this part came off especially slimy knowing what we do about the poor child testing positive.

Also, he had retained counsel, he should have stfu and let his lawyer talk.
 
200MB said:
This has got to be Aaron he's trying to rat on right?
Click to expand...

It sure seems like he was testing the waters for trying to nail Aaron specifically for contempt of court. Hopefully he brought his up to Judge Pussy Liquor before she left the case.
 
I concur. This, in my opinion, is the most damaging. Now that we know one of the children did test positive. Just wow. 😬
Strix454 said:
Nick just can't resist trying to gaslight during the emergency protective hearing. He makes a speech attempting to put material and conclusions into the country report on the children that are not there. Worse of all for Nick, he seems to be clearly acting here as if he knows one of the children is going to test positive for cocaine or has already tested positive for cocaine.

“Also, I would like to indicate that the that the petition drafted by the county itself indicates that the children were in no knowledge of any drugs being in the home and are not aware of any use, and any testing of the children that would result in drug use according to the children would be because of secondary exposure from some other source”

----
edit - on second thought, I'm not totally sure if Nick is saying this before or after the test result for the child came back. If it was before, its horrific.
Click to expand...
 
Mourning_Cloak said:
Is this Ms. Weber person implying that the "older children" need their parents more than the younger ones? Why? Shouldn't the two sons be more independent?
Click to expand...
The older kids could take a lesson from the 6 year old. That girl was wheeling, dealing, snorting, and running a criminal enterprise all under Nick's nose.

Meanwhile the other kids were sitting on their ass, too lazy to do their own laundry, and can't even heat up their own Spaghetti O's. One can only strive to have a kid as independent as Nick's 6 year old.
 
Can we just thank this absolute legend that's on our side? Another certified hood classic. Many blessings to MNPublicRecords! And a special thanks to Nick for all this free entertainment! Please let this go to trial!
 
MNPublicRecords said:
Interesting new matter of public record attached. Not all that new as it's from the first hearing in May, but now that the court reporter got around to completing the requested transcript that Frank now says he wants to use as an "exhibit" at trial, it's an interesting read for whatever he thought would be useful while we wait around for the trial. Your speculation from the IcyHotSonichu leaks was correct that at least Bob likely saw the house shortly before the arrest, but as is often the case throughout this saga, it gets worse: now we see the new revelation of the state's "concerns that both sets of grandparents were in the home the week before the removal" such that they would have seen firsthand at least the disgusting state of the home (if not also various telltale signs of ongoing drug use), causing the state to "want someone that is more versed in identifying those symptoms to be supervising" parental visitation instead of just trusting the grandparents to handle it. Just how willfully ignorant would "both sets" have to be to see firsthand the state of that house in mid-May and do nothing about it? Or could it be that at least one set (if not both sets) did do something about it, by cracking open Matthew 18:15-17 and bringing about the exact chain of events that led to Melin's mandatory reporting that very same week?

Other neat highlights include Nick's characteristically reveling in the chance to hear the sound of his own voice for a multi-page soliloquy even though his court-appointed attorney sitting right there was supposed to do the talking, or his second soliloquy rambling about how to best put a stop to some sort of state-connected big bad leaker bogeyman or whatever, or a laugh at Nick's herculean work ethic that used all the time from the May 24th release to the May 28th hearing to only get the home "much cleaner than what was initially found" (as opposed to objectively "clean"), or his echoing the Mayr copestream with the audacity to say to a judge with a straight face that there's "no indication other than a statute" about any child endangerment or parental drug use in parenting's vicinity ever having taken place despite all the evidence to the contrary, or his very oddly specific fixation on the children's seemingly-coached statements that "any testing of the children that would result in drug use according to the children would be because of secondary exposure from some other source" even though there was no mention of any such test results having come back yet at that time, almost as though he already had reason to expect what the upcoming test results would reveal and felt the need to get ahead of the story. Why on earth would that have been the foremost thing on his mind at such an early stage? This manchild says the darnedist things...
Click to expand...
sweep.png
There she is! :story:
 
Wow, he is really going after Aaron with both barrels. Gee, Nick, what’s wrong? You’re acting like Aaron fucked your wife or something.

I didn’t realize coke dealers were hanging around elementary schools now. Oh wait, those kids were home schooled. I doubt the other parents in town are going to take kindly to Nick’s implications here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom