💀 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.

  • 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 22.4%

  • Around 2 years

    Votes: 279 39.6%

  • 3-5 years

    Votes: 94 13.3%

  • As long as a pug lives, Karen farmer.

    Votes: 174 24.7%
  • Total voters
    705
Vibralldo said:
He's very weasely with his wording

I took it as him alleging she quit before he could fire her (a week after he claims she called him drunk) which is retarded because if she's calling you drunk around your kids and you cared you'd immediately fire her for the kids' safety
Click to expand...
Wait - am I totally misremembering? Didn't he start this whole anti-nanny crusade by saying the daughter just recently started telling him stories about the nanny, a year after the original events? Now the story is that he knew at the time and couldn't fire her fast enough?

Whether I'm misremembering that or not, I don't for a second believe the nanny did anything wrong. If she had, then that would have been the first thing Nick would have screamed from the rooftops on his arrest - It's the Nanny's fault! Instead, we're getting these unbelievable stories more than a year later? Nick has shown zero capability to resist seething at those who he perceives have wronged him, and there was no serious nanny seething until now. So, either the nanny did nothing wrong, or whatever the nanny supposedly did matters less to Nick than Eric July calling him a nonpracticing lawyer.

The most charitable way to look at Nick after this story is that he cares about his 8-year-old daughter being dosed with alcohol less than he cares about a snarky comment from an internet black guy.
 
Any idea what this tweet is bitching about now? Who would Nick consider to be among Aaron's "friends" who also have a notorious reputation for publicly releasing April's private messages? Nick would seem to have a monopoly on that so far...

Texts.webp
[X] [A]

Captain Manning said:
April would be a far better candidate to try and blame if he's trying to get ahead of the bodycam release. She was there right up to the arrest, even though we know the whole Nanny thing with her was a cover.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the previously discussed explanations that 1) he knows she's "got the nukes" to retaliate with, 2) his defaming her would prompt a need to defend herself that could eviscerate an NDA that has been a godsend for him so far, and/or 3) he still holds deep affection for her (whether unrequited or not) and sees some possible distant future with her to preserve, don't forget that 4) the story wouldn't wash because he would be contradicting himself by leaning into the "new nanny" narrative for the first time.

Correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC that cover only came up in two instances: first at the time of the arrest when Kayla improvidently bolstered the case for charges against April by lying about her being a live-in nanny, and secondly when Bobby "The Broom" Rekieta's sworn testimony referred to Chaney as the previous nanny in a way that everyone read to imply that April must have been the replacement nanny. In contrast, at the time of the arrest Nick committed to the whole other lie that April was just "visiting" and he later crowed to Keanu about how this was an altruistic gesture supposedly responsible for April not having been charged.

Even after April's charges in late July showed that his "just visiting" gambit didn't even work and there was no longer anything for him to gain from trying to take credit for it, did he ever start some retconning about how he considered April a nanny after all? Even though that would have been a great time for him to do so, I don't recall that he ever did, perhaps because he was still supremely confident in his legal analysis that the bodycam footage could never come out anyway, and for him to start now in obvious reaction to news of the impending release would be way too late. Oopsies!
 
Last edited:
Let me get something clear.

This nanny is irresponsibly becoming drunk while in charge of the children. And you're mad when she quit because . . . she couldn't DRIVE your children around. Getting your kid to Beginner Jazz 1 on schedule is worth putting them in the car with a known, irresponsible drunk. Sure.

Even his lies are stupid.
 
Hyacinth Bucket (Bouquet) said:
Let me get something clear.

This nanny is irresponsibly becoming drunk while in charge of the children. And you're mad when she quit because . . . she couldn't DRIVE your children around. Getting your kid to Beginner Jazz 1 on schedule is worth putting them in the car with a known, irresponsible drunk. Sure.

Even his lies are stupid.
Click to expand...
The only person who is allowed to drive his kids around while drunk is Nick himself.
Parental privilege.
 
Hyacinth Bucket (Bouquet) said:
Let me get something clear.

This nanny is irresponsibly becoming drunk while in charge of the children. And you're mad when she quit because . . . she couldn't DRIVE your children around. Getting your kid to Beginner Jazz 1 on schedule is worth putting them in the car with a known, irresponsible drunk. Sure.

Even his lies are stupid.
Click to expand...
It's funny and weird that Nick is mad at someone else for (alleged by him) giving his kids substances and driving them around inebriated
 
Folgers Can said:
Any idea what this tweet is bitching about now? Who would Nick consider to be among Aaron's "friends" who also have a notorious reputation for publicly releasing April's private messages? Nick would seem to have a monopoly on that so far...

Texts.webp
[X] [A]
Click to expand...
I would love it if @ItsAaronIgnoreMe started releasing texts. Would be epic battle of the texts. Lmao
 
Midnight Energy Drink said:
rekieta-nanny2.mp4

Why did you let the nanny to continue to be the nanny if you found out she was drunk while watching the kids?​

Click to expand...
Ya all just don't understand. They were ultimately safe b/c the seventeen year old was also there. And even though he is sooo sheltered he didn’t know what drugs is, he is like super mature and knows what to do when the babysitter is drunk. DUH! /sneed
Edit: fixed some typos.
 
Folgers Can said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC that cover only came up in two instances: first at the time of the arrest when Kayla improvidently bolstered the case for charges against April by lying about her being a live-in nanny, and secondly when Bobby "The Broom" Rekieta's sworn testimony referred to Chaney as the previous nanny in a way that everyone read to imply that April must have been the replacement nanny.
Click to expand...
The nanny thing was a weak cover, and we all know that crackwhore April wasn't really the nanny, but it would not be beyond Nick to claim she really was if he felt it would help mitigate the damage of the bodycam.

Ask yourself this. Which one is less stupid:

1. The house looks like shit because April didn't do her nanny job?
2. The house looks like shit because Chaney didn't do her nanny job?

I mean, they are obviously BOTH stupid, but #2 is much dumber. Nobody can reasonably blame a housekeeper that quit three months previous for the state of the house.

If they're split, I would agree that maybe he's scared of her dropping a nuke. I'd buy he's scared of something worse.

What I don't buy is that, if they split, he feels some altruistic loyalty to her.

This is Nick Rekieta. Claiming Nick wouldn't do anything bad to somebody because of love is nauseating. He's supposed to love his wife. He's suppose to love his 8 year old. Give me a break. Nick loves nobody but himself.
 
Midnight Energy Drink said:
rekieta-nanny2.mp4

Why did you let the nanny to continue to be the nanny if you found out she was drunk while watching the kids?​

Click to expand...
Now I'm confused, when did he find out about the nanny drinking and shit, didn't he say that his kids were just now telling him this stuff? Wouldn't the obvious answer to the question be that you didn't know about it at the time or you would have fired her? Is he really lying this blatantly and forgetting the timeline of his own lies?
 
dustnight said:
OMG It's happening he's actually doubling down! The second lolsuit is practically inevitable at this point.

View attachment 7392476
Click to expand...
Nick claims she won't sue, because "She knows the truth".
Let's hope this turns out like all of Nick's previous legal predictions.
I have zero doubt that Nick is willing to send his kids to lie on the stand and put them through the trauma of a court case.

1747854959197.webp
[Archive]
 
sum ting wong said:
Now I'm confused, when did he find out about the nanny drinking and shit, didn't he say that his kids were just now telling him this stuff? Wouldn't the obvious answer to the question be that you didn't know about it at the time or you would have fired her? Is he really lying this blatantly and forgetting the timeline of his own lies?
Click to expand...
The man has the short-term memory of a goldfish or Ethan Ralph. He's lying and obfuscating, but because his brain looks like that Sardinian maggot cheese, he can't keep up with them all.
 
Not sure if it's mentioned or pointed out, but some of the anonymous Supertips Nick receives reads as how Nick tweets and talks,
especially when he wants to mock someone or when he wants to attack someone and pretends he doesn't know what the supertip is about.
 
I dont know about the rest of you, but it seems very obvious to me: Whenever liars let escape unsavoury facts, there's always some truth behind. This whole Cheney business is impossible to pierce through yet, because we don't have the facts, but one thing on Rekieata's assertions can be believed: There most likely was child abuse in his house of some nature in that house and Rekieta knows about it. Naturally, when it involves unknown facts of such a sinister nature, it is better to not even entertain wild speculation, because it is just dark and unproductive. Having said that, this irrational lashing out Rekieta is having tells me there's a good chance there are secrets in that house that people are playing around and trying to create very confusing stories to cover. These types of stories usually go hand in hand where there is abuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom