Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta Law / @NickRekieta - Hard Drinking Minnesotan Lawyer and "Internet Shock Jock" on YouTube

[Huitzilopochtli]

Did not expect a lolicon and circumcision debate stream.


Seems to have pissed off this audience.

At the end of the day, the people who watch Rackets are fundamentally bad people that should have worse things happen to them.

 

[AnOminous]

Being in contact with a sex offender is not a crime.

It can be if you're under a court order not to associate with felons or specifically sex offenders.

From an outsider pov ,most americans fall under two teams ,it happens in every podcast and it's hilarious:

The correct position is, of course, whatever pisses off more autists in the thread. And if you're on 4chan or some other anonymous board, you should always switch sides a couple times.

 

[Iuviuv]

I'm not kickvic I was there since the beginning helping Vic you fucking retard. If you had some common sense you would have realize Vic is done he will never voice act because of both kick Vic and I stand with Vic.


Vic should have gone dark for awhile after he lost that lawsuit. Then find a different type of job instead of keep this bullshit going on fo

At the end of the day, the people who watch Rackets are fundamentally bad people that should have worse things happen to them.

Brb gotta look up what "Rackets" is, to see if I'm a bad person.

 

[fritocheeto]

Did not expect a lolicon and circumcision debate stream.


Seems to have pissed off this audience.

time stamp? ty

 

[Bickle]

Gotta let out a hefty laugh at the irony of Nick being so loud about not caring about circumcision, right after looking at a legal case about protecting children from harm. The sperging was coming from a guy with an absolute stance against abortion, something pro-lifers see as protecting the welfare of babies, but the anti-circumcision crowd sees circumcision as a terrible injustice against babies as well. I hope someone who cares about it will fork over some shekels to trigger Nick again.

The correct position is, of course, whatever pisses off more autists in the thread. And if you're on 4chan or some other anonymous board, you should always switch sides a couple times.

Circumcision threads are the easiest way for a thread to hit its bump limit, and the topic is a great way to derail any thread you desire.

 

[Secret Asshole]

I get it, the guy's a sleaze, but I'm just trying to look at things legally here. He wasn't convicted of rape or sexual assault, so legally speaking he's still innocent of that. Being in contact with a sex offender is not a crime. Sex offenders (or anyone) writing stories about child sexual assault with a profit motive is… a crime because that counts as obscenity, I guess?

I guess I just get a "I don't like this but I don't think it should be illegal" vibe from what I've read of this so far. Haven't watched the stream yet, though. Will background noise it while doing chores later today.

You are right, honestly. Its kind of like, the guy is going to prison for 40 years over what are probably pretty fucking awfully written stories, badly drawn art and just being a creep in general. I honestly hate obscenity and I think it is archaic and a violation of the first amendment. I guess they went for the obscenity because it was the higher weight charges instead of the two sexual assaults, though I didn't know there were statutes of limitations on assaulting minors and rape.

At the end of the day, the people who watch Rackets are fundamentally bad people that should have worse things happen to them.

Reiketa is almost always wrong, so it fits. I just happened to tune in and he was ranting about executing this guy for what is probably 4th grade reading level, badly written stories. At least say he should be shot because he's a rapist, which he is. Instead of peddling stories that probably read worse than literotica or bbs fiction.

At the end of the day he's a man going to die in jail because he sold shittily written stories. He didn't make child porn, he didn't produce child porn, he didn't traffic kids. He sold what is awful fiction from awful writers and awful people to probably creepy boomers who didn't know how the internet works.

Is it what he deserved for rape and molestation? Absolutely. But they didn't know that going in. So they contacted the Netherlands, pulled these servers, found absolutely no child pornography, no human trafficking, nothing, but awful stories. I mean, its fucking awful he wasn't convicted for those two assaults in the 1990s.

It really is hard to say. I don't think anyone should be in jail for awful fiction, no matter what it is (though cannibal fiction has a LOT MORE people trying to fucking kill and eat people through the internet, with some actually doing so. I, uh, guess you can make an argument? Though I've honestly never heard of someone trying to get kids over fictional stories before) but at the same time, the guy was a rapist and child molester, even if he didn't offend in like 20 years. But that's not what he went away for.

This shit is REALLY hard. I think if he wasn't a rapist and wasn't in contact with offenders, it'd be way easier for me to say "This is stupid and a waste of resources." But now? It gets a bit more complicated. Since if these are offenders and he knew that, you could make the argument that he was profiting off the stories of the victims of these offenders by selling them online. Or that he was profiting off using 'authentic' sex offenders, thereby profiting from their crimes of molestation if he willingly knew that.

So it becomes a lot harder, since theoretically, he is profiting off of other's crimes. Just like you can't use real child references while drawing that shit. So I think that's really where the harshness of the sentencing comes in. He was using real offenders, he was an offender himself and offenders were possibly writing about crimes they committed or were going to/currently/had escaped justice from crimes.

Its not really a clear cut case, as there are a lot of extenuating circumstances. I would rather the FBI use their resources to bust up human trafficking rings of children and women in the US, which forces these victims into prostitution/child pornography, than some boomer selling other boomers crappy stories. I mean, he was a sex offender and profiting off of other sex offender's crimes, so it wasn't a waste. But obviously that's not going to be every time and the next time you just might get someone who is just a creepy weirdo selling crappy stuff to other creepy weirdos without actually doing anything to anyone. And that's where it gets dicey.

 

[AnOminous]

I honestly hate obscenity and I think it is archaic and a violation of the first amendment.

I do as well but it probably wouldn't have been viewed as such by the Framers, at least not in the same way. "Freedom of the press" in general suggests certain limitations, and further, the Bill of Rights only restrains the federal government, and did not do so for the States, which often did have such laws. It's actually a fairly new development (in jurisprudential terms) for it to cover virtually anything that has any kind of speech element to it at all.

But I prefer Hugo Black's absolutist position that obscenity basically doesn't exist as an exception to the First Amendment. During his tenure, while a lot of these cases were being hashed out, the other eight Justices would literally have porn nights where they looked through the vilest porn they could find, pretty much, to decide whether it was obscene or not. Black refused to participate because essentially, he didn't care. Obscenity didn't exist to him as anything relevant to First Amendment protections.

Somewhat paradoxically, he also had a narrower definition of what actually constituted speech than the rest of the Court. He generally expected a verbal component, and dissented in the Tinker case, which extended free speech rights to students in a school environment wearing black armbands to protest the Viet Nam War.

 

[Sex Cannon Lupa]

I was more disturbed by that long-ass definition of obscenity. Going by that, the government can potentially declare anything they don't like to be obscene and sentence anyone to 40 years of hard (butt fucking) labor - e.g., being MAGA is now obscene: "Uh oh, I see you once posted on The Cheeto. Off to the klink with you, pervert!"

Reketa needs to calm his ass down. He's like the anti-EVS.

 

[Carl Smallwang]

I was more disturbed by that long-ass definition of obscenity. Going by that, the government can potentially declare anything they don't like to be obscene and sentence anyone to 40 years of hard (butt fucking) labor - e.g., being MAGA is now obscene: "Uh oh, I see you once posted on The Cheeto. Off to the klink with you, pervert!"

Reketa needs to calm his ass down. He's like the anti-EVS.

I mean, I think one of the stories in the case was literally called "Baby Wanker". Calm the fuck down.

 

[Secret Asshole]

I do as well but it probably wouldn't have been viewed as such by the Framers, at least not in the same way. "Freedom of the press" in general suggests certain limitations, and further, the Bill of Rights only restrains the federal government, and did not do so for the States, which often did have such laws. It's actually a fairly new development (in jurisprudential terms) for it to cover virtually anything that has any kind of speech element to it at all.

But I prefer Hugo Black's absolutist position that obscenity basically doesn't exist as an exception to the First Amendment. During his tenure, while a lot of these cases were being hashed out, the other eight Justices would literally have porn nights where they looked through the vilest porn they could find, pretty much, to decide whether it was obscene or not. Black refused to participate because essentially, he didn't care. Obscenity didn't exist to him as anything relevant to First Amendment protections.

Somewhat paradoxically, he also had a narrower definition of what actually constituted speech than the rest of the Court. He generally expected a verbal component, and dissented in the Tinker case, which extended free speech rights to students in a school environment wearing black armbands to protest the Viet Nam War.

That's kind of weird. But yeah, I mean, times change. I didn't know that about Black, that's interesting.

I was more disturbed by that long-ass definition of obscenity. Going by that, the government can potentially declare anything they don't like to be obscene and sentence anyone to 40 years of hard (butt fucking) labor - e.g., being MAGA is now obscene: "Uh oh, I see you once posted on The Cheeto. Off to the klink with you, pervert!"

Reketa needs to calm his ass down. He's like the anti-EVS.

I mean, I think one of the stories in the case was literally called "Baby Wanker". Calm the fuck down.

Honestly, Rieketa was completely histrionic at the end of the stream there and looked like a drunk retard, advocating people should be executed for reading crappy, disturbing, really bad fiction. You may as well execute everyone on this website and pretty much the entirety of the world if that was the case. And this case was much more complicated than a simple obscenity case and as long as that fucking retarded definition of obscenity exists, you can basically frame anything as it. Historically, obscenity cases have been used to go after people generally disliked. There's also a chart for Miller showing drawings of girls and estimating their ages, which was previously used to educate juries and see if a girl was underage.

Obscenity laws became obsolete the second child pornography laws were developed. Child porn laws were developed away from obscenity because they wanted something harsher. Similarly, bestiality pornography is considered obscene, but those laws typically, again, have their own separate categories (typically laws against bestiality and animal abuse). This is because those laws might be able to carry harsher sentences and monitoring than obscenity laws. So what is obscenity still around for?

Yeah, and a guy went to prison for that awful, retarded, probably crafted by a near illiterate story. Again, I'm not shedding any tears, but the way they got him is pretty bad. They just happened to stumble upon his history as a rapist, and it was incidental. I didn't read the case so I don't know if he knew he was talking with offenders, but considering he was an offender himself, I'd say it's a good bet he did. I mean, when I'm going over true crime shit and I see unsolved abductions tied to human trafficking and the FBI are putting in all this effort to bust a boomer who makes stories called fucking 'Baby Wanker'...I mean, I'm glad a rapist and a predator is behind bars. I guess we can do 'what ifs' all day, but at the end of it, he was still a rapist and a pedophile.

The problem is I'm vascillating between 'let him hang' and 'a guy got 40 years for a story called baby wanker while human trafficking operations exist'. I mean, I don't know. I don't want to defend him, but obscenity is retarded.

So, I actually found an archive of documents on the case so I'm going to go through it to see why he got 40 years.

There's this little thing here from the Affidavit:

8. Although Website A features numerous disclaimers indicating that all of the stories are fictional, a significant percentage of the subscribers I have identified so far have prior convictions for sex crimes against children. Thus far, I have positively identified approximately 19 Website A subscribers through a combination of bank records and FBI databases. Of those, nine were registered sex offenders for either child sex abuse, child pornography or both. Another is currently awaiting trial in a Utah state court for possessing child pornography and sexually abusing a child. Another was identified as a suspect in a 2007 FBI investigation into an online child pornography ring.

9. I identified nine instances between 2004 and 2018 where the FBI was investigating a subject for child pornography and found that the subject accessed Website A. Eight of the subjects were eventually convicted of child pornography offenses and the ninth committed suicide after indictment

10. Website A authors publish stories under usemames. A review of those usernames showed that many of them were the same as or similar to usernames that appeared in unrelated FBI investigations into child pornography and child sex abuse on other internet forums or peer-to-peer networks. From my training and experience, I know that it is common for traders of child pornography to use the same or similar usernames across a variety of online platforms.

17. Thomas Arthur deposited checks and money orders totaling between approximately $600 and $1,500 per month between 2016 and 2019. Thomas Arthur also received substantial transfers from an account that received deposits from a company that processed credit and debit card transactions. Thomas Arthur received between $10,000 and $13,000 each month in card sales in 2018 and 2019.

So you have subscribers that were child predators and some significant ones at that. It says later on he had 'over 800' subscribers. But there's also usernames identical to ones in other FBI investigations...yeah, kind of starting to come together as to why this guy got 40 years. And holy shit, 13k a month for running a shitty story website. Good lord. Fuck this guy and his subscribers.

19. On November 7, 2019, FBI SA Clay Trant and Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Derek Pearson attempted to interview Thomas Arthur. Arthur initially declined to speak with agents, but later reinitiated contact. Arthur agreed to speak with Trant and Pearson after being advised of his Miranda warnings. Arthur told agents that he operates the websites Website A and slutgirls4u.com. These websites are his sole sources of income. He does not have any employees and operates the websites himself. He stated he has over 800 subscribers to Website A and each subscriber is charged approximately $20 for a subscription. Website A has subscribers in foreign countries, and Arthur also publishes stories on Website A in foreign languages. Subscribers submit stories electronically to Website A for publication. Arthur publishes almost all of the stories he receives from his subscribers. The only circumstances under which he would not publish a story received from a Website A subscriber would be if the content of the story did not relate to erotica, the story did not make sense, or the story contained too many grammatical or punctuation errors. Most of the stories Arthur receives relate to child erotica. He acknowledged that the subscribers to Website A may have drawings on their author pages depicting children engaging in sexual acts, but he claimed these images were art

Oh uh, maybe you shouldn't talk without a lawyer bro? Yeah. Yeah.

There's also this:

NOTICE OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S DEMAND FOR FORFEITURE [See Fed. R Crim. P. 32.21 I. Obscenity Violations and Forfeiture Statutes As a result of the foregoing criminal violation set forth in Counts One through Seven the Case 4:19-cr-00774-DC Document 5 Filed 11/14/19 Page 3 of 4 United States of America gives notice of its intent to seek the forfeiture of certain property subject to forfeiture, upon conviction, and pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2 and Title 18 U.S.C. § 1467(a)(1), (2), and (3), which states: Title 18 U.S.C. § 1467. criminal forfeiture (a) Property subject to criminal forfeiture.-A person who is convicted of an offense involving obscene material under this chapter shall forfeit to the United States such person's interest in - (1) any obscene material produced, transported, mailed, shipped or received in violation of this chapter; (2) any property, real or personal, constituting or traceable to gross profits or other proceeds obtained from such offense; and (3) any property, real or personal, used or intended to be used to commit or to promote the commission of such.

Jesus Christ, I didn't know you could have asset forfeiture for fucking obscenity. But hey, he's going to die in prison and is a rapist and a pedo, so....whatever.

Furthermore, the United States “is not obligated to prove that the defendant knew that such material was legally obscene, only that the content was sexually oriented.” Fifth Circuit Pattern Instruction § 2.61. Therefore, because there is no requirement for the United States to prove Defendant knew the material was obscene, and the material is not deemed obscene until a jury (or other trier of fact) finds it to be obscene,

So....something isn't obscene until someone else decides it is or is not obscene? How does this make any fucking sense? Is obscene material just in Schrodinger's obscenity realm? I don't like this guy at all, but this is retarded. So much content is sexually oriented and legal, but could very easily be considered obscene. I fucking hate this guy but the logic loops in this shit. I mean...

To prove a matter is “obscene,” the government must satisfy three tests: (1) that the work appeals predominantly to prurient interest, which is an appeal to a morbid, degrading, or unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from an ordinary interest in sex; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Literally the entire internet is obscene under these definitions.

I mean, this guy is a piece of human garbage, but it just boggles my mind if he wasn't a rapist and didn't have all these predators submitting stories and was just some rando running a website...thankfully, he's a piece of shit so we can 'what if' all day, but the world is probably a better place without him.

Here's the archive if anyone cares to read them:

Index of /10/items/gov.uscourts.txwd.1067928/

 

[Not Really Here]

I think the circumcision thing touched a nerve.

*Sped thoughts*
'Hey, Nick's talking about a guy selling child sex abuse stories that may be real as they are submitted by offenders.' 'I know! This is the perfect time to ask about his kids genitals and find out if they're cut or not!'

Time and place speds, time and place.

 

[A N N E X]

We'll probably be seeing this MeToo lawsuit on his show soon. The accused has Racket's motto in his medium article.

When this story broke, this idiot made the biggest mistake of his life by presenting his butthole to the pubic and begging people to fuck him raw.

https://archive.ph/BXkXv

https://archive.ph/3FZof

https://archive.ph/oPWGt

This is what happens you "let the victims speak" and then seemingly confirm that everything they said is true.

It looks like he removed all of his "I am a bad person" tweets in advance of his lawsuit. This all happened almost a year ago, so he was coming up on the statute of limitations.

There's also a small Weeb Wars connection. Chris Avellone was friends with Jessie Pridemore and there's sexual tension all over their conversations.

Spoiler: Please Respond

https://archive.vn/pb57A

https://archive.vn/EAtBY

https://archive.vn/uj6LL

https://archive.vn/svKlD

https://archive.vn/WyUVV

https://archive.vn/sc1hh

https://archive.vn/3WQp4

 

[TexOffender]

We'll probably be seeing this MeToo lawsuit on his show soon. The accused has Racket's motto in his medium article.

View attachment 2297338

View attachment 2297337

When this story broke, this idiot made the biggest mistake of his life by presenting his butthole to the pubic and begging people to fuck him raw.

View attachment 2297361

https://archive.ph/BXkXv

View attachment 2297364

https://archive.ph/3FZof

View attachment 2297368

https://archive.ph/oPWGt

This is what happens you "let the victims speak" and then seemingly confirm everything that everything they said it true.

View attachment 2297370

It looks like he removed all of his "I am a bad person" tweets in advance of his lawsuit. This all happened almost a year ago, so he was coming up on the statute of limitations.

View attachment 2297373

There's also a small Weeb Wars connection. Chris Avellone was friends with Jessie Pridemore and there's sexual tension all over their conversations.

Spoiler: Please Respond

View attachment 2297392
View attachment 2297393


https://archive.vn/EAtBY

View attachment 2297384

https://archive.vn/svKlD

View attachment 2297386

View attachment 2297385
https://archive.vn/sc1hh

View attachment 2297387
https://archive.vn/3WQp4

Was reading about this all morning. The article from the shitty gamer site a year ago was archived.

https://archive.md/i7i0q

Based Erik kain of forbes did a story on it.

https://archive.md/dqrkT

Bitch went protected. Look at the bio lol

And her linked in has this lol. For what safety? you going to court bitch.

EDIT: Attached the court doc in case nick wants to grab it.

Also interesting tweet:

Spoiler: CUNT

 

[OneHandClapping]

The problem is I'm vascillating between 'let him hang' and 'a guy got 40 years for a story called baby wanker while human trafficking operations exist'. I mean, I don't know. I don't want to defend him, but obscenity is retarded.

I think it's because it's thoroughly dislikable individuals with thoroughly dislikable cases that often set precedent. Bradenburg v Ohio was KKK spedery that protected free speech. Miranda rights came about because of a man who would be later convicted of rape and kidnapping. This particular faggot will probably never see SCOTUS, but if it strengthens 1A rights I'd consider it good, even if I think he should rot in prison.

So it's a balancing act between supporting the merits of any particular asshole's case and wanting to see said asshole burn even if it's unjust.

It gets muddied because people see you saying "wait, that's not right" and speds screech "LOL DEFENDING A BABY RAPIST!!!"


EDIT: That case about the metoo'd video game guy should be interesting. If nothing else, it'll probably test California's anti-SLAPP, which is at least as strong as Texas' TCPA.

 

[AnOminous]

This is because those laws might be able to carry harsher sentences and monitoring than obscenity laws. So what is obscenity still around for?

No really good reason. The only thing that generally comes from them is pointless prosecutions like the Max Hardcore case, or outright malicious (in the normal and not the legal sense) prosecutions like Mike Diana's prosecution for his comic Boiled Angel. I don't see why that is "obscene" in the legal sense if Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs isn't.

These prosecutions are so rare at this time that even if you agreed that it is the business of the government to police comic books, porn, normal books, Internet postings, or whatever, they are too rare and utterly arbitrary to serve any real deterrent purpose. They just occasionally get some guy, who is usually doing stuff a million other people are doing without getting prosecuted for it, and why? What real purpose does putting Max Hardcore behind bars a couple years serve?

I frankly suspect they went after him because they were mad they lost the rape case because what he did making his porn, while pretty gross behavior, wasn't actually rape. The people "raped" often came back to do more. And again, this had the aspect of some of the porn containing things like the girl, obviously in her 20s, saying things like "But I'm only 16." So what? Does that make every guy whose wife dresses up in a Catholic schoolgirl uniform a pedophile?

That said, with cases like Hardcore and Mike Diana out there, this stuff is within what the law considers obscene. I'm not saying I agree with that, but these are the rules a court has to apply if it comes to them. Only if the Supreme Court revisits these old rulings does this change.

Literally the entire internet is obscene under these definitions.

Not entirely, but to a limited extent.

• that the work appeals predominantly to prurient interest, which is an appeal to a morbid, degrading, or unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from an ordinary interest in sex;
• that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and

These are subject, if a court exercises long-arm jurisdiction over something in another jurisdiction, perhaps because of availability within the jurisdiction, or has general jurisdiction, such as Texas probably does over Netflix in the Cuties debacle, not to some hypothetical general federal standard, but to the "community standards" of any locality. So an obscenity prosecution of anyone, anywhere, could be based on the standards of the most prudish locality in the entire country.

This is rather alarming, because you can meet two of these prongs effectively without it being subject to meaningful appellate review.

• That the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

This is subject not to a subjective "community standard" but a purportedly objective standard, that is, "whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole." So to get a foot in the door, that is, to meet the first two factors, the prosecution need only find the most prudish community in the country and a valid basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendant, but for the third, they need to meet an objective standard.

The first two are questions of fact, which are subject to limited appellate review, but the last is a mixed question of fact and law, giving an appellate court more room to overrule the trial court. The fact that it is even considered partly a question of fact leads to absurd results like literary critics being called as "experts" as to whether something has literary value, which is a crackpot thing to do.

It should be noted Miller was argued before the Court the year after Black left (about a week before he died), and he would certainly have not signed on to such a standard.

 

[Slap47]

time stamp? ty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Fkk2Z97uo

The entire second half of this stream. At 2:11:00 it ramps up.

"Does the futa have foreskin or no foreskin" is the new meme question now btw.

 

[AnOminous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Fkk2Z97uo

The entire second half of this stream. At 2:11:00 it ramps up.

"Does the futa have foreskin or no foreskin" is the new meme question now btw.

The autism in Nick's superchats is mutating faster than coronavirus.

 

[Carl Smallwang]

You may as well execute everyone on this website and pretty much the entirety of the world if that was the case.

Only in a perfect world...

 

[feral cat #6385]

NIck Fatkeita

 

[Kosher Salt]

Honestly, Rieketa was completely histrionic at the end of the stream there and looked like a drunk retard, advocating people should be executed for reading crappy, disturbing, really bad fiction. You may as well execute everyone on this website and pretty much the entirety of the world if that was the case. And this case was much more complicated than a simple obscenity case and as long as that fucking retarded definition of obscenity exists, you can basically frame anything as it. Historically, obscenity cases have been used to go after people generally disliked. There's also a chart for Miller showing drawings of girls and estimating their ages, which was previously used to educate juries and see if a girl was underage.

Yeah, the whole thing seemed pretty silly. "I'm such a hardcore libertarian that I think it should be legal for people named BabyWanker to write stories about raping babies, but we can deal with that after we legalize weed, prostitution, all drugs, and literally everything else first... in the meantime he should be killed." Ok then, should it be legal or should he be killed? Is Nick advocating for an extrajudicial solution to a libertarian problem? I presume murder's still illegal in Nick's libertarian utopia, so that's not a solution, no matter how much he believes the guy should be put against the wall. Either he thinks the government should do it, or it shouldn't be done.

Kicking the can down the road a few hundred years into some libertarian nigh-utopia that'll never actually exist and saying "and THEN we'll legalize these stories about perverts raping kids" doesn't strike me as honest. It's too fucking easy to say that in some hypothetical future that'll never exist (and even if it did, wouldn't exist within your lifetime), something should be legalized. Just fucking admit that you don't think it should be legal and you're not such a hardcore libertarian after all. You're still pretty damn libertarian and I don't think many people are going to criticize you for drawing that line.