- Joined
- Feb 14, 2024
I swear, Nick sounds like a Redditor now. He's finally found his level
💀 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.
- Thread starter Himedall All-seeing Waifu
- Start date
-
🏰 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
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2021
Fix it for ya champ!
TherapyMan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2018
Nick's strategy here is to be make it worth more trouble than it's worth for Monty to collect. You can see this behavior in basically every legal battle he engages in. People like Nick rely on the fact that enforcing laws and civil actions are lengthy, expensive, and time-consuming processes to escape the consequences of their shitty behaviors (see also, Ethan Ralph). Settlement runs contrary to Nick's goals of dragging this out as long as possible.
Even if Nick wanted to settle, the case probably cannot be settled unless Monty runs out of money. Sure, Monty has Nick by the Balldo, but both are six-figures deep in this fight and highly motivated to avoid any compromise, so neither is gonna walk away without a significant incentive, which Nick wouldn't be willing to give and it's unclear what Monty would even accept at this point. Nick's only hope would be for Monty to run out of money or energy first, but Nick being Nick would resist any reasonable settlement offer and probably force Monty to knuckle down.
Nick would rather force Monty to go through all the hoops of having to collect than be solvent.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2024
Dude, this has been going on for years already.
Monty knows he has Nick by the balls and he will get his pound of flesh.
Dragging it out will just make it more expensive for Nick and ignoring court orders means some day someone will show up to repossess his Rustang for auction.
Nick thinks he is above the law, he is repeatedly demonstrated that believe in his interactions with the police and in this case in particular.
He will not learn and he will keep blaming everyone else, while he is already selling off one house to pay for his legal bills.
Monty will be laughing at the end of this and Nick will be coked out in a hotel room in Vegas screaming at the police officers there to arrest him.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2021
Cant believe nick had to spend 2 whole days not obsessively reading his thread and instead had to take care of those little scandinavian incel prudes kids of his. What an inconvenience! Make sure to have a night cap or two for me Nicky, I know how stressed you get! 
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2019
Oh so that’s why Nick seemed so jovial on Twitter. He didn’t have to read the Farms (I’m sure he obsessively hit F5)
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2023
parsnip
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
I don't understand Twitter replies. Who is April's comment directed at?
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2023
I know her tweets don't make much sense, but I'm pretty sure they're intended for the tweets directly above her tweets
Melty Butter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2024
TherapyMan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2018
Will go on for even longer and once Monty gets that pound of flesh, Nick will make it as difficult possible to collect. Unclear if Nick will even be solvent at that point.
Have you ever tried to enforce a judgment on a coked out junky who burns through money faster than a high-end hooker? It's not the easiest thing.
Your comment actually got me thinking, and I am questioning what assets Nick even owns in his own name outside the Rustang. The houses are owned by the mysterious Robert Lord trust which may or not be owned by Nick himself (he claims as much, but he often lies) or his parents. Maybe he has a lot of cash in the bank, but he's blowing through that at a dangerous clip, maybe intentionally. If Nick burns through everything and Monty cannot reach into the trusts, then Nick might actually be judgment proof, as strange as that sounds for someone who had a million-dollar contract a little more than a year ago.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2023
Journoscum
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
I think she might be more of a potato than the typical JF Gariepy victim.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2023
Uncanny
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2024
Depends on who wrote the trust papers. If it's Nick, then Monty gets paid. We all know Nick isn't capable of good legal work.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2024
Thread got slow huh? Whole weekend with barely an update.
Also, April, not fair. Nick has the potential for an amazing redemption arc because he’s plumbed some serious depths. Few of us have his powerful Ralphamale energy, and of those that do, most can’t afford enough cocaine for themselves, never mind a family of five. The Biden economy has made it damned hard for young people to form a polycule these days.
Also, April, not fair. Nick has the potential for an amazing redemption arc because he’s plumbed some serious depths. Few of us have his powerful Ralphamale energy, and of those that do, most can’t afford enough cocaine for themselves, never mind a family of five. The Biden economy has made it damned hard for young people to form a polycule these days.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
Too many people were trying to download a video of Destiny sucking cock and they broke the database. Had to be rolled back.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2018
Man, we're not gonna make 8000 pages before New Year that way.
Step it up, Crackets! The farms are back, have a drink!
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2021
She does like the woods apparently so you might be correct.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2024
Ooh neat, the effortpost gobbled up by the backup timing survived in clipboard manager, so what the hell:
I hate to give him or the Barneswalker any credit on anything, but for purposes of perspective-taking there is at least one barely non-frivolous triable issue they probably think they can fool a jury with. At this point everyone, including them, has to accept that the drug charges are a slam-dunk assuming Kayla's motion and any post-trial appeals continue failing to knock out the warrant, but the child endangerment charge is at least slightly weaker insofar as the essential element that a child must be proven "present" at the time of the possession beyond a reasonable doubt, and unfortunately the breadth of that term is poorly defined at the appellate level thus far.
I've referred before to the case of State v. Wierson, 2019 WL 4409392 (Minn. App. Sept. 16, 2019) (rev'd on other grounds) just as an offhand example of how harshly sentencing could go for the child endangerment gross misdemeanor notwithstanding whatever the felony sentencing guidelines say for the drug count, but interestingly Wierson also briefly touched on the "presence" element where even the state seemed to implicitly concede that presence is not necessarily so simple as residing in the same home, and also may involve a question of access to specific areas within the home:
Unfortunately the child endangerment conviction in Wierson was reversed for the unrelated reason of the defendant's caretaker status, so the court had no occasion to drill down on definition and scope of the "presence" element beyond the nonbinding dictum above, so it still is an open question in a case like Nick's where caretaker status is a given. For whatever it's worth though, I figured there would have been more of a battle on this specific issue at the district level that could serve as a sneak preview for how it could play out in Nick's case, and sure enough there was in the MCRO file. The pertinent docs are attached for anyone curious but here's a TLDR:
1. Early on, Wierson's motion to dismiss at the omnibus hearing included, among other things, an argument that there wasn't a sufficient showing of probable cause to believe the child had enough proximity to where the drugs were stored:
2. The state's response to the motion to dismiss pointed out, correctly, that under State v. Perry the child did not need to have been in actual danger, but seemed to misapprehend the thrust of the defendant's argument that the child, whether in actual danger or not, would at least need to have proximity or access beyond mere presence:
3. In the omnibus hearing transcript, both the court and the state seemed to take seriously the clarified argument about proximity to the drugs mattering despite undisputed presence in the home, to the point that the state even acknowledged the implications of a "statutory vagueness" (i.e. due process) argument separate from the factual argument:
4. When denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, the judge notably at least took the presence argument seriously enough to pad the order with multiple findings of fact fixating on whether the garage was "accessible" versus being "locked or secured," and also whether the toolbox in the garage containing the drugs was "locked or secured," followed by the conclusions of law hinging on how the "unlocked and unsecured" toolbox and the "accessible" garage were crucial to the judge's decision, as though lack of access could have made the decision go another way:
5. In the eventual trial transcript, the state didn't rest on its laurels about the child's presence in the house, and instead the state took the question of access seriously enough to make sure their direct examination of one of the searching officers got it into the record that the garage was "accessible from inside the house" from an "unlocked" service door where a child could "go back and forth," without "access prohibited in any way," such that "the child would have been free to go into their garage" as shown by the "children's toys and other children's objects" in there:
Taking all of the above into account, even though Wierson ultimately didn't need to prevail on this specific argument, it speaks volumes that both the judge and even the state took the argument very seriously and were careful to build a solid record regarding it so as to withstand appeal on a ripe issue of first impression. It follows that the prosecutor in Nick's case would have to take it seriously, because even though the Barneswalker hilariously waived it for omnibus purposes, it will still be fair game in trial testimony and in an appeal as well.
Moreover, as much as I hate to admit it, Nick would likely have a stronger factual record on this issue than Wierson ever did. In a perfect world for Nick, he could have even had a killshot if all the drugs had been kept in his safes, but because April's dumb ass left the credit cards and vial and likely surrounding residue on the bedside table (which he probably chews her out about regularly), his only hope would be to have him, Kayla, and April all swear on a stack of bibles that each door to that master bedroom was always routinely locked and pray that enough jurors find a bare kernel of reasonable doubt in that transparently self-serving bullshit. That would at least have better chances than Wierson, whose unlocked garage service door and unlocked toolbox made sure he was fucked.
This crucial issue could also shed some more light on why Aaron is regarded as a likely witness when he ordinarily wouldn't be in a bare possession case, and why Nick has had such a hard-on for thinly veiled witness intimidation at all costs. If Aaron could testify to his personal knowledge from many months of cuck orgies in that bedroom that everybody was careless about locking the doors, perhaps even so much so that kids stuck their heads in the door asking for spaghettios etc., then under Rule 406 that all comes in. There might even be a halfway decent shot at getting in his story about the coke bullet falling into his own couch or any other similar instances of coke making its way out of the bedroom, though that kind of prior bad acts evidence would have a tougher time Rule 404/Spreigl unless the state can shoehorn it into one of the various exceptions.
Anyway, that's just an often overlooked aspect of this case worth reconsidering from the prosecutor's perspective. If in her shoes I'd just run a train on this arrogant faggot and let the jury decide, but with her office's limited resources and bigger fish to fry, you just never know what to expect from her.
I hate to give him or the Barneswalker any credit on anything, but for purposes of perspective-taking there is at least one barely non-frivolous triable issue they probably think they can fool a jury with. At this point everyone, including them, has to accept that the drug charges are a slam-dunk assuming Kayla's motion and any post-trial appeals continue failing to knock out the warrant, but the child endangerment charge is at least slightly weaker insofar as the essential element that a child must be proven "present" at the time of the possession beyond a reasonable doubt, and unfortunately the breadth of that term is poorly defined at the appellate level thus far.
I've referred before to the case of State v. Wierson, 2019 WL 4409392 (Minn. App. Sept. 16, 2019) (rev'd on other grounds) just as an offhand example of how harshly sentencing could go for the child endangerment gross misdemeanor notwithstanding whatever the felony sentencing guidelines say for the drug count, but interestingly Wierson also briefly touched on the "presence" element where even the state seemed to implicitly concede that presence is not necessarily so simple as residing in the same home, and also may involve a question of access to specific areas within the home:
Unfortunately the child endangerment conviction in Wierson was reversed for the unrelated reason of the defendant's caretaker status, so the court had no occasion to drill down on definition and scope of the "presence" element beyond the nonbinding dictum above, so it still is an open question in a case like Nick's where caretaker status is a given. For whatever it's worth though, I figured there would have been more of a battle on this specific issue at the district level that could serve as a sneak preview for how it could play out in Nick's case, and sure enough there was in the MCRO file. The pertinent docs are attached for anyone curious but here's a TLDR:
1. Early on, Wierson's motion to dismiss at the omnibus hearing included, among other things, an argument that there wasn't a sufficient showing of probable cause to believe the child had enough proximity to where the drugs were stored:
2. The state's response to the motion to dismiss pointed out, correctly, that under State v. Perry the child did not need to have been in actual danger, but seemed to misapprehend the thrust of the defendant's argument that the child, whether in actual danger or not, would at least need to have proximity or access beyond mere presence:
3. In the omnibus hearing transcript, both the court and the state seemed to take seriously the clarified argument about proximity to the drugs mattering despite undisputed presence in the home, to the point that the state even acknowledged the implications of a "statutory vagueness" (i.e. due process) argument separate from the factual argument:
4. When denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, the judge notably at least took the presence argument seriously enough to pad the order with multiple findings of fact fixating on whether the garage was "accessible" versus being "locked or secured," and also whether the toolbox in the garage containing the drugs was "locked or secured," followed by the conclusions of law hinging on how the "unlocked and unsecured" toolbox and the "accessible" garage were crucial to the judge's decision, as though lack of access could have made the decision go another way:
5. In the eventual trial transcript, the state didn't rest on its laurels about the child's presence in the house, and instead the state took the question of access seriously enough to make sure their direct examination of one of the searching officers got it into the record that the garage was "accessible from inside the house" from an "unlocked" service door where a child could "go back and forth," without "access prohibited in any way," such that "the child would have been free to go into their garage" as shown by the "children's toys and other children's objects" in there:
Taking all of the above into account, even though Wierson ultimately didn't need to prevail on this specific argument, it speaks volumes that both the judge and even the state took the argument very seriously and were careful to build a solid record regarding it so as to withstand appeal on a ripe issue of first impression. It follows that the prosecutor in Nick's case would have to take it seriously, because even though the Barneswalker hilariously waived it for omnibus purposes, it will still be fair game in trial testimony and in an appeal as well.
Moreover, as much as I hate to admit it, Nick would likely have a stronger factual record on this issue than Wierson ever did. In a perfect world for Nick, he could have even had a killshot if all the drugs had been kept in his safes, but because April's dumb ass left the credit cards and vial and likely surrounding residue on the bedside table (which he probably chews her out about regularly), his only hope would be to have him, Kayla, and April all swear on a stack of bibles that each door to that master bedroom was always routinely locked and pray that enough jurors find a bare kernel of reasonable doubt in that transparently self-serving bullshit. That would at least have better chances than Wierson, whose unlocked garage service door and unlocked toolbox made sure he was fucked.
This crucial issue could also shed some more light on why Aaron is regarded as a likely witness when he ordinarily wouldn't be in a bare possession case, and why Nick has had such a hard-on for thinly veiled witness intimidation at all costs. If Aaron could testify to his personal knowledge from many months of cuck orgies in that bedroom that everybody was careless about locking the doors, perhaps even so much so that kids stuck their heads in the door asking for spaghettios etc., then under Rule 406 that all comes in. There might even be a halfway decent shot at getting in his story about the coke bullet falling into his own couch or any other similar instances of coke making its way out of the bedroom, though that kind of prior bad acts evidence would have a tougher time Rule 404/Spreigl unless the state can shoehorn it into one of the various exceptions.
Anyway, that's just an often overlooked aspect of this case worth reconsidering from the prosecutor's perspective. If in her shoes I'd just run a train on this arrogant faggot and let the jury decide, but with her office's limited resources and bigger fish to fry, you just never know what to expect from her.