💀 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: 157 22.5%

  • Around 2 years

    Votes: 277 39.7%

  • 3-5 years

    Votes: 94 13.5%

  • As long as a pug lives, Karen farmer.

    Votes: 169 24.2%
  • Total voters
    697
At this point I think the drama around releasing the footage might be more exciting than the actual footage. That video has a lot to live up to!
 
Friend of Dorothy Parker said:
It doesn't take corruption to clarify or correct something that is incorrect. Looking only at the two or so pages from the transcript someone posted about 15 pages ago, everyone was wishy-washy and bumbling, but in context it's clear that the recordings were not being admitted into evidence at that time. The prosecutor said OK but I might use it later. If she didn't, she didn't. And as the motion mentioned, the Order didn't mention either of the recordings when it listed Exhibits. A motion from the state to correct the record they helped to confuse is appropriate.
Click to expand...
The prosecutor wasn't the one presenting it as evidence at the omnibus hearing. Frank was the one who raised the issue regarding April's statement captured by the footage, uploading the footage as evidence, and the judge rejected it as premature. Frank claimed he found case law that suggested otherwise and said he wanted to make sure "that it was raised as early as possible."

The order doesn't mention either of the recordings, but it also doesn't mention the issue of April's statement which was mentioned in Frank's motion and the omnibus hearing.

Put it this way: if the case proceeded to trial and then an appeal on this issue, would Nick's lawyer for that appeal be willing to concede that Frank didn't raise the issue and didn't present evidence regarding it at this hearing?
 
Nova902 said:
tell that to the people getting reported from the comment section
Click to expand...
The only thing that is allowed in stallyn's comment section is bashing Aaron. They have more than balldo's gate level of delusional hatred of the guy.

I watch the clips on there because I prefer his clipping over Elisa's. But I stay far away from the comments.
 
Vibralldo said:
He also said that once something is in evidence they can't take it out
Click to expand...
It wasn't admitted into evidence. They were uploaded to MNDES in anticipation of their being evidence, and you can request to have non-admitted materials removed. Frank White indicated he's put them there by saying he'd get rid of them*, so he should have requested deletion (account owner can request), but guess it wasn't important for that legal eagle. OR the stupid FAQ below is ambiguous, bc it references a deleting items in a "pre-hearing" status even after a hearing has occurred, so maybe it stays that status if not admitted.

* he's a terribly imprecise speaker

Does uploading my exhibits into MNDES automatically get the exhibits into evidence in my case?

No, you must first offer (ask the judicial officer to allow) your exhibits to be admitted as evidence at the time of the hearing or trial. The court will then determine whether the exhibits are admissible under the Rules of Evidence. See the “Exhibits” tab above for more information.​


What happens to the exhibits that I upload into MNDES and do not use?

Exhibits that you upload and do not offer to the court as evidence remain in MNDES until the retention period for all exhibits in the case is reached. You can request an exhibit in pre-hearing status be deleted any time before it is offered to the court during a hearing. To do so, , submit a deletion request from the portal. Court staff review deletion requests. Requests that are approved will process within 24 hours. If your request is denied, you will receive an email with a reason for the denial.​

Click to expand...
Folgers Can said:
upload of two complete bodycam MP4 files into MNDES as exhibits in support of a contested omnibus motion would have made those exhibits public, but for today's desperate ploy to undo that mistake by claiming that those exhibits were somehow withdrawn or made moot by comments uttered in the omnibus hearing.
Click to expand...
The guidance references a "hearing," not a trial, and contemplates exactly the scenario of uploading but not being admitted into evidence.
 
DolphinMan said:
At this point I think the drama around releasing the footage might be more exciting than the actual footage. That video has a lot to live up to!
Click to expand...
Nicks reaction to the video being released would be probably the apex of it. Because he'd have nothing left. This drama is juicy, but what its release would do to nick that's what I want to see.
 
Won garish said:
Could it be pending charges in the hacking case? Oohhh I hope it’s a federal case!!!
Click to expand...
The state trying to keep the footage hidden should have him over the moon. I don’t know what the shitty news was but I don’t see it being related to the bodycam. Would be wild if he got charged for the e-mail thing.
 
DolphinMan said:
At this point I think the drama around releasing the footage might be more exciting than the actual footage. That video has a lot to live up to!
Click to expand...

TrainWreckWatcher said:
Nicks reaction to the video being released would be probably the apex of it. Because he'd have nothing left. This drama is juicy, but what its release would do to nick that's what I want to see.
Click to expand...

Steamboat Captain said:
I'm already convinced that Nick's reaction (and that is his Balldo orbiters) is going to be 10X better than what we might see on that body cam.
Click to expand...
Everyone has seen an episode of Hoarders or Nightmare Tenants. Nick's reaction and the shattering of his house (heh) of lies is the real prize.
 
TrainWreckWatcher said:
Nicks reaction to the video being released would be probably the apex of it. Because he'd have nothing left. This drama is juicy, but what its release would do to nick that's what I want to see.
Click to expand...
In a way it works like this even now. Imagine having the sword of Damocles hanging over your head every day and every night. This catastrophe that can happen at any moment, always on the back of his mind, shaped by his imagination into something far more terrible than it would actually be. Imagine living like this.
Personally, I would need a drink if I was Nick.
 
DiabeticSydePhil said:
This would mean its 'in evidence' correct? You cant just view any bodycam footage by visiting a court house.

Its literally part of the record if they didnt need to FOIA it.
Click to expand...
That's the supposed error they are trying to correct.
Balldo's Gate said:
The prosecutor wasn't the one presenting it as evidence at the omnibus hearing. Frank was the one who raised the issue regarding April's statement captured by the footage, uploading the footage as evidence, and the judge rejected it as premature. Frank claimed he found case law that suggested otherwise and said he wanted to make sure "that it was raised as early as possible."

The order doesn't mention either of the recordings, but it also doesn't mention the issue of April's statement which was mentioned in Frank's motion and the omnibus hearing.

Put it this way: if the case proceeded to trial and then an appeal on this issue, would Nick's lawyer for that appeal be willing to concede that Frank didn't raise the issue and didn't present evidence regarding it at this hearing?
Click to expand...
Raising an issue isn't having evidence admitted. One requires you to say something; the other requires you to make a request and have it granted, and until both occur, it didn't happen. I'm aware who presented what; I mentioned the prosecutor because her input was intending to indicate she was fine with his removing those items, and the two of them were both less definitive than they should have been.
 
Nick's handling of the entire bodycam fiasco is so absolutely fucked that his constant thrashing just makes him look worse and worse.

Begging the court to extra super make the bodycam unreachable not only makes him look like a cuck bitch but also makes him look guilty as fuck.

Nick doesnt need his streaming 'job' to make ends meet, but he absolutely cannot handle no longer being viewed as positively as he was. He's perpetually chasing the high (pun intended) of social validation and the more he cannot get it, the more he self sabotages by being a sperg.

Nick fears nothing more than the whole internet seeing what a loser he is.
 
I don't really understand how the bodycam footage wouldn't be evidence, considering all of the defendants received the footage from the state themselves. Nick himself on multiple livestreams said he has the complete footage as evidence for his case, and that he will show parts of it "later" to clear his name. I just don't understand how this wouldn't be evidence if the defendants got all the footage themselves as part of the package the state gave them of all the evidence they had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom