Nick Rekieta, MN lawyer and YouTuber, facing drug/gun charges

[Swordsmyth]

How long would you tolerate someone as snarky as you at the website you run?

You weren't banned for snark, you were banned for maliciously telling someone to destroy his life by going to Mexico, crossing the cartel controlled border illegally, and and then going to the crime, lunatic, and drug infested homeless camps to live instead of trying to get a job and make something out of his life like everyone else was trying to help him do.

People aren't banned from the site for snark.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

You weren't banned for snark, you were banned for maliciously telling someone to destroy his life by going to Mexico, crossing the cartel controlled border illegally, and and then going to the crime, lunatic, and drug infested homeless camps to live instead of trying to get a job and make something out of his life like everyone else was trying to help him do.

People aren't banned from the site for snark.

So you say. No malicious intent.
I called the kid out for being lazy.
How is he doing?

 

[TheCount]

How long would you tolerate someone as snarky as you at the website you run?

Fascists are universally petty tyrants when given any authority

 

[dannno]

Not credible.
We have no proof he quit for 11 days and even if he did it was premeditated to buy the gun and then go right out and feed his still running addiction. (which he would know was still running because he either was still feeding it and lying about the 11 days or was in withdrawal because 11 days is not long enough to be over it)

The only defense that can be made for him is that he had every right to lie to the feds because they had no right to condition gun rights on drug use in the first place.

LOL, no, that's not how it works..

Hunter didn't need to prove he wasn't using, the government has to prove he was "using", define what that means, and/or define "addiction", put that definition on the form and prove he was "addicted".. plenty of people use drugs and don't believe they are addicted, whether or not you think they are addicted. Even then, if they don't believe they are addicted, there is no definition of addiction on the form, then they aren't lying on the form. They have to prove he actually lied, as that's what he was charged with, as opposed to trying to game the system within the loose rules and definitions.

As far as I'm concerned, using means that while he was signing the document he was simultaneously hitting the crack pipe, or at minimum, high on crack, and that needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The form needs to define what "using" means. Like, currently using or currently on the substance? How many hours/days/weeks ago does it reach?

This is just another case of the prosecution and the Judge convincing a jury that he was guilty of something they couldn't prove. Hopefully it gets overturned.

 

[unknown]

What triggered the warrant?

I mean, besides speaking out against the regime.

 

[TheCount]

What triggered the warrant?

I mean, besides speaking out against the regime.

Maybe his 9 year old daughter was coked up at school.

 

[dannno]

What triggered the warrant?

I mean, besides speaking out against the regime.

A Pastor reported concern for the children, which typically leads to a wellness check, not an arrest warrant and knock down the door..

Nick is clearly very upset with the Pastor.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The form needs to define what "using" means. Like, currently using or currently on the substance? How many hours/days/weeks ago does it reach?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndBjraV-3UY

 

[Swordsmyth]

So you say. No malicious intent.
I called the kid out for being lazy.
How is he doing?

I'm not going to discuss this any further with you.

 

[Swordsmyth]

LOL, no, that's not how it works..

Hunter didn't need to prove he wasn't using, the government has to prove he was "using", define what that means, and/or define "addiction", put that definition on the form and prove he was "addicted".. plenty of people use drugs and don't believe they are addicted, whether or not you think they are addicted. Even then, if they don't believe they are addicted, there is no definition of addiction on the form, then they aren't lying on the form. They have to prove he actually lied, as that's what he was charged with, as opposed to trying to game the system within the loose rules and definitions.

As far as I'm concerned, using means that while he was signing the document he was simultaneously hitting the crack pipe, or at minimum, high on crack, and that needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The form needs to define what "using" means. Like, currently using or currently on the substance? How many hours/days/weeks ago does it reach?

This is just another case of the prosecution and the Judge convincing a jury that he was guilty of something they couldn't prove. Hopefully it gets overturned.

That's false, he was using and buying the very same day and obviously intended to.
He lied.

But it is an unconstitutional requirement, so he had a right to lie.

 

[TheCount]

That's false, he was using and buying the very same day and obviously intended to.

Hunter Biden intentionally did drugs the exact same day he bought a gun so that he could 5D chess the supreme court into invalidating the unconstitutional ban on drug users' gun rights.