💀 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
Zab McMann said:
I wouldn't be surprised if this was a desperate, twofold attempt to save face for the county and to honor a backroom deal that the sheriff had with Bob and Celeste.

Can't have their least successful baby boy ruin the family image, y'know.
Click to expand...
I think people are over thinking the Rekieta angle. It's small-town Minnesota, not only is Kayla's family local to the area, but the entire family is deeply involved with the community, would not be surprised if the Sheriff/prosecutor was doing it for Kayla rather than Nick. There's also a good chance that the sheriff/prosecutor have personally met the rekieta's/in-laws at various community functions & events.

(edits): Grammar & such.
 
Last edited:
Boingboingboingboi said:
so the prosecutor is trying to retroactively claim that the bodycam was NOT evidence because it was not used in the omnibus hearing and should not count as evidence. the legal question then seems to be whether 1) its use in the motion to dismiss based on april's mirandizing/not means it qualifies as evidence and 2) whether its use at any other point during the case makes it count as evidence no matter what the judge/prosecutor says about its non-use in the omnibus.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, if the bodycam footage was attached as an exhibit to a motion and filed in the court after the commencement of criminal proceedings I would say that definitely counts as evidence. The statute merely says "presented as evidence in court" and makes no mention of what stage of the proceedings it has to be nor does it specify that it has to be admitted to be shown to a jury at trial.
 
Remember when Nick said he didn't object to releasing the footage and it was just because the case was still active that he wasn't releasing it and also it vindicated him?
 
Zab McMann said:
I wouldn't be surprised if this was a desperate, twofold attempt to save face for the county and to honor a backroom deal that the sheriff had with Bob and Celeste.

Can't have their least successful baby boy ruin the family image, y'know.
Click to expand...
I was joking a few days ago about how I want the bodycam footage to be played on national television to mortify their boomer friends, but it seems that Celeste and her husband legitimately fear that outcome more than the specter of what will become of their grandchildren growing up like this.
 
rekieta racist.webp

I wouldn't want a lawyer that uses this kind of language
 
Zab McMann said:
I wouldn't be surprised if this was a desperate, twofold attempt to save face for the county and to honor a backroom deal that the sheriff had with Bob and Celeste.

Can't have their least successful baby boy ruin the family image, y'know.
Click to expand...
It probably shows way more cocaine than they recorded, and the cocaine that disappeared miraculously lowered the amount to a lesser charge. All done as a favor by the Sheriff at the behest of Bob and Celeste, they are probably a family friend which would also explain why he would be willing to defy a court order for their benefit. Wouldn’t surprise me if that missing cocaine went right to April at Bob and Celeste’s house as part of her payment to stay quiet and they would make her charges go away.
 
Last edited:
Zab McMann said:
I wouldn't be surprised if this was a desperate, twofold attempt to save face for the county and to honor a backroom deal that the sheriff had with Bob and Celeste.

Can't have their least successful baby boy ruin the family image, y'know.
Click to expand...
I think it's more that they're embarrassed about the whole thing. Nick has brought a ton of attention to their small county and made a complete ass of himself and said a lot about a lot of people in their legal community because he refuses to keep his mouth shut.
 
clipartfan92 said:
I wouldn't be shocked to discover that a LEO acting under the authority of Kandiyohi County held down Nick's minor child and injected her with a solution containing cocaine, using a hypodermic needle and cocaine that was stolen from the police evidence room. There's really no way of knowing without seeing the video.
Click to expand...
Is Candy Yoshi county a den of corrupt evil pigs who frame people just for dissenting from the government? Do they really just break into random YouTube streamers' homes and throw around drugs and frame them?

As the Law Pope said, you never know what cops bring into your home. I'm totally convinced now that Nick was completely framed by the corrupt cops, who were paid off, and utterly framed him!

#freecuckieta
 
RotPockets said:
It probably shows way more cocaine than they recorded, and the cocaine that disappeared miraculously lowered the amount to a lesser charge. All done as a favor by the Sheriff at the bequest of Bob and Celeste, they are probably a family friend which would also explain why he would be willing to defy a court order for their benefit. Wouldn’t surprise me if that missing cocaine went right to April at Bob and Celeste’s house as part of her payment to stay quiet and they would make her charges go away.
Click to expand...
AnOminous said:
Is Candy Yoshi county a den of corrupt evil pigs who frame people just for dissenting from the government? Do they really just break into random YouTube streamers' homes and throw around drugs and frame them?
Click to expand...
Candy Yoshi's sherrif's department seems like it's comprised a whole bunch of dope thieving scoundrels and it is in the public interest to see it proved one way or the other if you want to know the truth about it.
 
Father Balldo said:
LOL I always knew the bodycam footage would never come out and you people kept getting your hopes up. Several posts in here always made it sound like it was a sure thing when it clearly was most likely NOT going to happen based on the wording of the law. Tons of Kiwis screaming at the sky and counting their chickens before they hatched though. Add it to the pile of six gorillion pages that MNPR still has and whatever other clout chasing garbage @Potentially Criminal and Meme Copium have claimed exists.

Rackets won.

edit: give me your shitty stickers if it makes you feel better, the facts of the matter are what they are and won't change because you got misled
Click to expand...
The finest connoisseur of Balldo goo
 
Null said:
Kandiyohi was ordered by a judge to release the footage and now they're in damage control. The sheriff outright said he did not intend to comply with the judge's order until a local big law firm sent him a letter, and they have the clout in the state to actually intimidate.

We then asked the Department of Administration to rule and they also issued an opinion that the sheriff should comply. He said he would decide that to do on the 2nd.

Now, the prosecutor is jumping in to help. Seems like the county conspiracy does exist, but not to hurt that poor little crackhead.
Click to expand...
This situation seems really bizarre. Isn't it highly unusual to try to alter the record what, 9 months, after the hearing took place?

If the case went to trial and then Nick appealed on the issue of April's statement as recorded by the body cam, would he really concede that he never offered the body camera footage as evidence in this hearing? It doesn't seem right to be able to raise an issue and then only after a plea deal and sentencing when the issue is no longer relevant say "Nvm. Forget we ever said that."
 
Null said:
Now, the prosecutor is jumping in to help. Seems like the county conspiracy does exist, but not to hurt that poor little crackhead.
Click to expand...

God's strongest milkman said:
What I don't understand is why the county is willing to help him?
Click to expand...
It could be a few different reasons, and it might not have anything to do with Nick

In the judicial system, the prosecutors / DAs and police always cover each other's backs. They have qualified immunity so they rarely suffer any consequences for their actions, even malfeasance.

And it sure seems like there is malfeasance here.

If the police don't want the bodycams released (for whatever reason, large or small), the police may have asked the DA to file this motion to give the sheriff legal cover to deny the release.

The police involved might not want their faces and interactions up on the Internet. Or their officers to look bad. Maybe they didn't follow some procedure properly. Maybe they don't want to be seen on camera scaring children. Or maybe the police don't want the attention.

It also might have something to do with Kiwi Farms specifically, in that the police don't want their bodycams up on this web site.

It's the government, and absent any force or FOIA or sunshine law to the contrary, they tend towards secrecy and protecting themselves and the bureaucracy.

Here, the personal interests of Nick Rekieta (and his crack house), and the county sheriff's office might actually overlap in that they both want to keep this footage from the public.

The fact the sheriff's office is conspiring with the DA shouldn't surprise anyone. These two entities do stuff like this all the time in every jurisdiction across the country.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom