💀 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.

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • 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: 156 22.5%

  • Around 2 years

    Votes: 276 39.8%

  • 3-5 years

    Votes: 93 13.4%

  • As long as a pug lives, Karen farmer.

    Votes: 168 24.2%
  • Total voters
    693
Himedall All-seeing Waifu said:
He could try, but Nick is not longer adept at deception anymore. He cannot feign interest in trial streaming for more thay a few days/hoirs or play nice with other streamers and STFU about his personal grudges.
Click to expand...
No, I meant he could grift the hell out of step 9 if he genuinely acknowledged and overcame his narcissism. Deception wouldn't be required because it would be genuine. I can see how what I wrote before wasn't clear. Of course, this will never happen so I am not even sure why I am entertaining it.
 
Last edited:
Himedall All-seeing Waifu said:
I am not sure how to feel about this. I can see how Nick would take this as a personal vendetta against him from Josh and the Farms, and I cannot say that he is 100% unjustified.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I mean, there might be an element of that, but there is also a practical reason for doing this:

Hardin is likely a better attorney than Schneider, and Null could spoon-feed him the information collected on this site that would bury Nick insofar as what he said about Monty, and why Nick is wrong to do what he did.

Ultimately though, I don't know why Hardin took the case, but I do think it is a very positive development for Monty. Not about to look a gift horse in the mouth here.
 
Captain Manning said:
It's just a really STUPID position, if you ask me. Article III, which is an essential part of checks and balances, doesn't make any goddamned sense if the conclusion made in Marbury is wrong.
Click to expand...
Similarly, why even bother with the Article V amendment procedure if Congress can simply pass a law doing away with the Bill of Rights?
VeteranOfTheRetardWars said:
Occam’s Razor, for a device Nick likes so much.
Click to expand...
Nick probably thinks Occam's Razor is something to shave his balls with so he can get the Balldo on without pulling hairs.
 
Captain Manning said:
I mean, there might be an element of that, but there is also a practical reason for doing this:

Hardin is likely a better attorney than Schneider, and Null could spoon-feed him the information collected on this site that would bury Nick insofar as what he said about Monty, and why Nick is wrong to do what he did.

Ultimately though, I don't know why Hardin took the case, but I do think it is a very positive development for Monty. Not about to look a gift horse in the mouth here.
Click to expand...
It's a tossup though on who makes Nick seethe harder. The guy he has personal history with and holds a grudge against or the guy he believes made a connection someone he thinks betrayed him. I think they should just team up so he can seethe harder at everybody involved.
 
woodedbag said:
I haven't stated my opinion on where Kayla stood on this because I haven't done enough research. I was rewatching this based solely on paying attention to stories related to April and the formation of the polycule. My best guess is exactly what Aaron said which is "Kayla told Nick she thought this is what he wanted and so she was just trying to give him what he wanted." Which, if that's the case would NOT include getting feelings for Aaron. (From Nick's perspective).
Click to expand...
I actually don’t want to have more of this conversation, but I’m just stating for the record that parenthetically adding “from Nick’s perspective” was like dropping a bomb on the whole paragraph preceding it, and now it’s tl;dr for me to try to untangle wtf you’re talking about.

I thought we were talking about whether liked the toe
 
Assuming there has not been a deposition of Nick yet as a part of discovery in the Montagraph lawsuit, this is really bad news for Nick. A deposition of Nick by a very good attorney probably fully aware of Nick's history promises excellent entertainment value.

Schneider was ok for the phases he handled and a rational choice if Nick had been sane and settled the case. But going to a different attorney for a full-blown trial against Randazza is a good move.
 
AnOminous said:
They need some reason to do it. Also if you refuse you can pretty much expect to be dragged out regardless. But they pulled over Mimms with an expired plate and noticed a bulge in his jacket as he was exiting the vehicle and, reasonably concerned for their own safety, frisked him and the bulge was indeed a loaded revolver.

(So far, every time of record Nick has been pulled over, there's been sufficient justification to tell him to leave the car, if not because of the primary offense, because of him acting like a babbling retard. I'm honestly amazed he didn't get a DWI because you know he was under the influence at least one of those times.)

So the expired plates justified stopping him and asking him to leave the car, and the bulge that turned to be a revolver justified a search under Terry.
Click to expand...
has the interpretation of Ohio v Mimms changed since the 70s? the way i understand it, it was ruled that police don't need any reason to ask you to step out of your car because it's an extremely minor violation of your privacy, and easily rectified if there's no problem, and provides high amounts of safety for officers. i'm pretty sure ohio v mimms is the case cited whenever there's an officer-involved shooting of a sovcit who escalates because they refuse to leave their vehicles.
 
Gobermental Supervisor said:
Russel Greer will be Nick's ace in the hole for trial.
He can testify about the stalker behavior of Hardin.
Click to expand...
Maybe a whippit or six might level off old Russ. Either way, I can't imagine he'd be any harder to understand with his voice all nitrous'd up.
 
MetokurGroomedMe said:
has the interpretation of Ohio v Mimms changed since the 70s? the way i understand it, it was ruled that police don't need any reason to ask you to step out of your car because it's an extremely minor violation of your privacy, and easily rectified if there's no problem, and provides high amounts of safety for officers.
Click to expand...
They still can't just pull you over for no reason at all.
 
AnOminous said:
They still can't just pull you over for no reason at all.
Click to expand...
i understand the confusion now, i was only looking at ohio vs mimms for its changes to how asking you to exit the car worked, it's entirely correct that they still need some kind of reason to pull you over, or you're gonna get a nice taxpayer-funded payday.
 
MetokurGroomedMe said:
i understand the confusion now, i was only looking at ohio vs mimms for its changes to how asking you to exit the car worked, it's entirely correct that they still need some kind of reason to pull you over, or you're gonna get a nice taxpayer-funded payday.
Click to expand...
It's just that generally, if they had cause to pull you over, they now almost automatically have cause to ask to you exit the car. Pull that "Am I being detained" shit and you will soon find that yes, you are now.
 
He
Sneed on Cloud 9 said:
View attachment 7418103

Contemplations.mp4

"Steven Alvarez... yes and no. Umm... I know what you're saying. At the end of the day, it's still my fault. I still, you know, I had, uh, the illegal substances in my house. That was, that was on me. Um, how it got there is frustrating, but it doesn't change who commit the crime and whose fault it is. I think that maybe is something I may have been inarticulate about, uh, in my frustrations., talking about it. But I did it and I uh...[garbled]. You know, I am also a good part of the reason they came to the house. It wasn't like it was everybody else's, uh, doings. It was also my "disaster stream" which umm sent everything over the edge. But how it got started and why everybody was watching the "disaster stream" in the first place is a long story that's very complicated. It involves people really close to me that, uh, and the, the absolute sundering of, uh, in a multi-decade relationships that I'm really, really sad about... for a lot of reasons. Uh, sorry."

I found this interesting and thought I'd share it.

Addendum: I'm concerned that my clips are too big. Null said to re-scale videos at a resolution of 720. If anyone has any suggestions, so I may improve the quality of my clips, please send me a message.
Click to expand...
He looks absolutely fucking demonic in that clip.

Is it just me or is he slurring his words? He sounds drunk. Or actually, his voice got that slight benzo slur to it. Once you hear it, you’ll recognize it.

Did Nick dip into Kayla’s xannies?! Full on Ralphamale arc coming?
 
Knowing now that the mysterious "brown substance" was DMT, it got me thinking silly thoughts. Some people who smoke DMT say it feels like it lets you "talk to God," so what if Nick being arrested before he could smoke any of it was simply God's way of avoiding conversation with Nick? "Oh fuck, Nick bought the DMT. I really don't want to be stuck with this balldo faggot for even 5 minutes. Let's push along this cocaine-fueled meltdown and subsequent search warrant to avoid the struggle." Could you blame Him?
 
AnOminous said:
They need some reason to do it. Also if you refuse you can pretty much expect to be dragged out regardless. But they pulled over Mimms with an expired plate and noticed a bulge in his jacket as he was exiting the vehicle and, reasonably concerned for their own safety, frisked him and the bulge was indeed a loaded revolver.

(So far, every time of record Nick has been pulled over, there's been sufficient justification to tell him to leave the car, if not because of the primary offense, because of him acting like a babbling retard. I'm honestly amazed he didn't get a DWI because you know he was under the influence at least one of those times.)

So the expired plates justified stopping him and asking him to leave the car, and the bulge that turned to be a revolver justified a search under Terry.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. They need to have some kind of infraction to pull you over, even if they have to follow you around for ten blocks, waiting for some kind of minor violation to get an excuse to check for warrants.

But once you’re lit up, they can pull a lot of shit in the name of officer safety.

Was just hilarious to me to see an ACTUAL lawyer who does LEGAL COMMENTARY say something so dumb: “Actually sweaty, I’m a LAWYER and KNOW MY RIGHTS! You can’t ask me to step out of the vehicle!”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom