💀 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.

[August Levasseur]

What if it wasn't harassment but advertising to potential new Quover members??? Any chance that would be a defense?

No, you fucking retard. Aaron's not getting out of these charges.

 

[Potato CPA]

No, you fucking retard. Aaron's not getting out of these charges.

Fair enough then. Seems Shitty you can send nudes and then later cry foul. Like damn. Not cool.

 

[AnOminous]

Also, is tricking gingers out of their property really a crime?

No, because they have no souls and are therefore not even human.

 

[Vernon Dozier]

First, it's contempt of court to show up intoxicated. Second, one of the opening questions, especially for a drug addict, is whether or not they're on any substances that would compromise their memory. Lying about that is perjury.

So sure if she wanted to add two more crimes to her rap sheet.

What if the drugs are legally prescribed? I know the court often requires someone released on bail to abstain from all non-prescribed medications, but what I’m trying to ask is: does the same rule apply to testimony if Kayla is prescribed lorazepam by a licensed psychiatrist?

 

[AnOminous]

Eta: that definition should have "and" instead of the second "or.". Geez.

Most of these stupid laws are stupidly drafted. Also this particular law appears overtly transphobic. What Scandinavian incel bigots!

 

[N1bbaN3rd]

No, you fucking retard. Aaron's not getting out of these charges.

He is definitely guilty of the misdemeanor.
The felony charge has an element of intent which he arguably does not exhibit.
If he's smart, he'll cop a plea to the misdemeanor.

 

[AnOminous]

What if the drugs are legally prescribed?

Doubling up your dose because you feel like getting more high is not counted. Also even being on legally prescribed drugs that compromise your ability to give usable testimony makes your testimony worthless. So "yes, I'm on prescription drugs that would compromise my testimony" makes your testimony worthless. And "no I'm not" when it's a lie makes it perjury.

He is definitely guilty of the misdemeanor.

I'm not sure that entire statute isn't facially unconstitutional. It's absurdly broad.

Fair enough then. Seems Shitty you can send nudes and then later cry foul. Like damn. Not cool.

FUN FACT: If you don't want nude pictures of yourself on the Internet, don't send nude pictures of yourself to people on the Internet.

I have used this one weird tip to never have pictures of my dick on the Internet!

I strongly suggest everyone else does this too!

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

The statute doesn't classify it as pornography. The statute is about nonconsensual dissemination of "private sexual images." "Revenge porn" is the colloquial reference.





Eta: that definition should have "and" instead of the second "or.". Geez.

Reading the statute, the harassment part makes no sense.

"the actor disseminates the image with intent to harass the person depicted in the image;" Aaron was boasting.

Hmm? In what way can Aaron sharing that photo with Geno be said to be with the intention to harass Kayla?

Reading the charges it looks to me like the investigating officer is trying to say it is a symptom of an harassment campaign, but harassment like that is a separate crime anyway and using that logic Aaron discussing Nick and April is harassment also. He was certainly saying worse stuff about them.

So I'll go out in the limb and predict that harassment aspect is dropped at some point and the Nick cope will be epic.

 

[PyrrhicRustle]

No, you fucking retard. Aaron's not getting out of these charges.

Yeah probably, but any argument he could potentially make would lead to some funny and weird revelations so he should at least try.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

It actually made me want to read this part of the bible. I hear a lot about Jacob and Isaac and Abraham but this Esau guy is news to me. Betrayal, Bribery, Intrigue.

You might enjoy this piece that focuses on the opposing natures of Yakov and Eisav, starting in the womb, and how their mother Rivkah tried to make sense of what it was all about and what God wanted from her.

Spoiler

I also HIGHLY recommend The Passions of the Matriarchs, which really helps one understand what made each of these women tick, what they struggled with and what it all meant for them. It’s over 50% off right now, insane deal. You don’t need to know Hebrew to read it, but will learn quite a bit about various roots and their meaning — an invaluable bonus IMO.

Really seems like the bible has it all, story-wise

Truer words etc.

Spoiler

There is an oft-repeated passage in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of Our Fathers) that addresses this. It’s in Aramaic and translates to “Turn it over and turn it over again because everything is inside of it. Look into it; become old and gray inside of it. Don’t back away from it – there’s nothing else so satisfying.” (The rabbi who said this has only one quote in the entire volume and was himself a convert. But this one quote is one of the best known among Jews.) In a typical Torah class, you can spend hours or days fixating on one word and why it was used instead of another, looking up all the other places it’s used in the Torah and what that tells us about its more nuanced meaning, etc. The insights, revelations, surprises and even outright intentional humor that are revealed by this kind of close examination always make it worth the hunt.

Hearing Nick abuse these sacrosanct Scriptures, bending them to make them say what will reflect most positively on his degeneracy, is especially offensive if you’re accustomed to studying these things in the primary texts and original language, a process that demands you take pains to question your assumptions. Some of us have been raised with the understanding that there is a religious commandment to question religious teachings in the best possible faith, looking to see where you think there are cracks and earnestly digging through millennia of commentaries to find out if your questions have merit. For a person raised to engage in this exceedingly humbling form of learning on a daily basis, observing Nick’s facile approach is revolting.

Spoiler

The other day, someone shared a clip of Nick telling Joe about what a bad person David was. Joe showed EXTREME restraint in not calling him a fucking retard who’d know how stupid he sounded if he’d ever done any substantive study of the man. Nicholas Rekieta wouldn’t be fit to clean the bollocks and butthole of David’s horse, let alone render an opinion like that. If he were to ever experience one genuine moment of seeing himself for what he really is, Nick would want to end his life on the spot.

Cc @Swole McPole

 

[Doctor Professor Timon]

You guys remember when Nick and Drex were watching Jack Murphy getting his chocolate-volcano eaten out by his girlfriend on stream?

Look back at Nick's facial reactions then knowing what you do now. Enjoy the horror of that realization.

 

[N1bbaN3rd]

I'm not sure that entire statute isn't facially unconstitutional. It's absurdly broad.

Aaron doesn't strike me as the kind of lawsperg with the will (or the resources) to mount a challenge.

 

[Shig O'nella]

Hmm? In what way can Aaron sharing that photo with Geno be said to be with the intention to harass Kayla?

Eh, I can see it if I squint hard.

Look at it this way. We're fucking. You send me a nude because you're a brain rotted coomer.

Later we're not fucking, I show your nude to someone else - not just any fucking rando down the pub but someone that knows you personally. You're gonna feel not fucking great about that.

 

[ShinyStar]

What I'm looking forward to the most in Aaron's revenge porn trial is when Nick, as a witness, starts furiously signaling the prosecutor and then, when the prosecutor chooses to ignore him, jumps up from his chair screaming, "Objection!" at some perfectly acceptable question.

 

[Kipersonapiscesotter]

Eh, I can see it if I squint hard.

Look at it this way. We're fucking. You send me a nude because you're a brain rotted coomer.

Later we're not fucking, I show your nude to someone else - not just any fucking rando down the pub but someone that knows you personally. You're gonna feel not fucking great about that.

I mean I'm not trying to say he isn't guilty of the misdemeanor; he clearly is.

However it clearly states intent to harass and this is where the video is going to work against that claim. The video is bad for claiming you didn't send, but considering the context of tattoos and "your boy didn't do bad did he?" is clearly, as Keanu says, broing out.

Harassment is intended for kinda of Aaron had sent the Pic to her stepfather and said "Doesn't your stepdaughter have great tits" after a relationship break down.

Also, to my knowledge, Geno and Kayla didn't know each other. There is no suggestion that even Keanu knew her either? They live in different states. Keanu knew April.

 

[HungryPug]

Oh damn. What if Gino & his gang are also swingers?? The one slutty gal Gino is with already has an onlyfans. So... Yeah what if Aaron shared, in the spirit that Gino et. al. were swingers too??? And Kayla set the precedent they share with fellow swingers openly - and proof was that Keanu is a swinger too, or on the signal chats too??

What if it wasn't harassment but advertising to potential new Quover members??? Any chance that would be a defense?

Aaron said a couple of weeks back that he watched April and Keanu making out. I don’t remember him saying it went further than that.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Semantics aside, my point remains. Nips shouldn't be illegal. I agree with Nick, they're all a buncha Scandiwhovian prude incels!!!

OK, though Scandinavia is ackshually one of the most liberal regions for female toplessness. Must be those Catholic German influences in MN

Trivia;
In the US, see here and here for state laws (for display, not for dissemination). Talk to TN, UT*, NC, PA, and/or NJ (the two sources above have conflicting info).
* should have been legal after 10th Circuit ruling in 2019 but a couple of women were prosecuted in 2022, and my time/interest for digging into this has expired so idk!

All that aside, whether or not permitted to be displayed, boobs are still considered as intimate or private. And if you wonder why, the answer is "show bobs and vagene."

Food for thought: This could be a true statement by Aaron in an attempt to be slick, since he may have not "received" the nude over Signal. He may have been the one taking it (after filling her with cock meat while Nick peaked through the door).
View attachment 6372397

if so, even stronger case for its private nature

Most of these stupid laws are stupidly drafted. Also this particular law appears overtly transphobic. What Scandinavian incel bigots!

I like to be snide about drafting fuck-ups, and I spend a lot of time explaining why X needs to be changed bc it's wrong or confusing after 50 people have signed off on it...but I'm now the one writing/rewriting 50 things that need to stand up to regulatory and audit (and everything short of that) scrutiny, and I'm near-paralyzed trying to project forward how they will be read. Shoe's on the other foot now, serves me right!

I'm not sure that entire statute isn't facially unconstitutional. It's absurdly broad.

In Casillas the MN Supreme Court found it Constitutional.

 

[Shig O'nella]

Harassment is intended for kinda of Aaron had sent the Pic to her stepfather and said "Doesn't your stepdaughter have great tits" after a relationship break down.

Oh, I agree with your take, but I can see a grey area that could be used - showing it to a couple of her friends who she (presumably) hasn't peeled down in front of ain't a lot different from showing it to her stepfather. It's more a who Aaron showed the pic to than that he showed the pic at all situation.
Either way, Aaron should just cop to it for being a general shitbag.
A gentleman never tells is a good rule to follow.

 

[LiquidKid]

I can only repeat.
Farmers MISSED NOTHING.
Token said: Motion in limine.
Judge said: Motion in Limine.
State Did NOT agree to NOT use April's Bodycam.
STATE did NOT agree any miranda rights were violated [which is what Boss Baby Barnes CRIED in a girly voice about and what JUNKIE claimed in his motion and his post omnibus stream, I thought].
STATE merely Agreed Ape's statements outside of court are hearsay. YET if u think about it EVERYTHING outside of court is all hearsay in actuality. SO NOT A MISS by anybody, Farmer or Lawyer.

Goberment Spectator AND AnOminus ALSO posted that Ape's BODYCAMS can be used but will be decided in later, closer to trial, Motion In Limine and/or should ape testify whether SPECIFIC statements will be WHITE Noised out of her bodycam [as was done with darrel brooks girlfriend bodycam]. NICK LIED in his Post-omnibus junkie freak-out stream.

Additionally, as another post here NOTED that even Ape's attorney FAILED to mention these alleged Violation of Miranda Rights....!!!!
Miranda right?
Not Mentioned at the get????
NOBODY Finds that glaring????

Bottom Line: Nick lied POST Omnibus and WITHOUT Kiwi Farmers present we would not have known about Ape's MOTION IN LIMINE. Farmers=1. Junkie=negative 400 lies.

Farmers Missed Nothing AND added GREAT people details. The idea to STOP farmer attendance is assinine. I bet they improve with every future attendance and become even better reporters BUT ALSO they shall become better non-practicing attorneys-- even better than JUNKIE himself.

Jesus Christ. 1. They owed no one anything. 2. They acquitted themselves well. 3. They were not or were not there in capacities as lawyers. 4. They provided milk, and, even better, a nice little vignette and human side-story. 5. The transcript was out fast enough. 6. Speculation is half the fun.

I think neither of you paid attention to what I actually said.
I praised them and said I was grateful, and in no way did I say they shouldn’t have been there. Just that they left out a key aspect. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out a short coming.

 

[AnOminous]

What I'm looking forward to the most in Aaron's revenge porn trial is when Nick, as a witness, starts furiously signaling the prosecutor and then, when the prosecutor chooses to ignore him, jumps up from his chair screaming, "Objection!" at some perfectly acceptable question.

And then is immediately asked by the judge "Are you firing your lawyer? Do you now wish to represent yourself?" And either he sits the fuck down and shuts the fuck up or he gets immediately ass-raped.

And if his response is this:

Then the ass-rape commences immediately.