Nick Rekieta's logical fallacy
Nick and I went back and forth, and he ignored the key legal point, a fatal flaw for someone who fancies himself a legal analyst.
An incompetent Florida judge issued an order on the merits when a case was supposed to be paused, but that didn’t bother a popular YouTuber who was too busy insulting me to notice this legal malfeasance.
Who is Nick Rekieta?
Nick Rekieta built a YouTube brand with witty and charismatic legal analysis.
His channel came to prominence by providing wall to wall legal coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse, Depp/Heard, and other trials.
At his height, he was earning six figures, not bad for someone with no discernable legal experience- only a bar card.
It all came crashing down when, after a series of YouTube videos where he looked like he was on drugs, Minnesota cops visited his home and found drugs, weapons, all with his kids in the home.
He was looking at years in jail, before negotiating a nice deal which avoided much jail time.
Nicholas Robert Rekieta, 43, was sentenced to 28 days in jail with five years of probation on Friday. He was given two days of credit for time already served, and is due to report to Kandiyohi County Jail on Aug. 1, 2025, at 7 p.m., court documents state. He must also serve 80 hours of community service.
Under the agreement, his probation officer can request the jail time be deferred if he follows the terms of his probation, but a judge would still need to approve that request.
Probation conditions show he must submit to random drug and alcohol testing, and he is not allowed to possess firearms.
Many of his YouTube friends dumped him.
Nick and Megan Fox
My former friend Megan Fox, who was featured on his streams and thereby grew her audience, stuck by him. She even wrote a letter to the judge, excusing his behavior because most lawyers have drug problems, according to her.
Dear Judge Wentzel,
I've known Nick Rekieta professionally and personally since 2022. Nick created an entirely new type of entertainment covering legal battles on YouTube that was wildly successful. His commitment to his work and his love of the law drove him to be one of the most successful law channels on YouTube drawing hundreds of thousands of people to engage in legal discussions. Nick’s unique style of covering trials from gavel to gavel with humor, legal analysis, and irreverence led to multiple law channels gaining notoriety and popularity. The law became approachable for the average person through Nick’s invention. Several channels became successful because of his model and an entire community known as “LawTube” grew out of Nick’s influence. This led to many people becoming interested in the law, going to law school, becoming lawyers, making life-long friends who shared interests in legal battles, and changed the trajectory of many lives for the better, including mine. My channel was positively impacted by Nick’s unique approach to online entertainment and his direct help and advice.
Like a vast majority of lawyers, Nick struggled with substance abuse (emphasis mine). This is a well-known and studied problem in the legal profession. It is so widespread that every bar association has programs and resources for lawyers with substance abuse problems. The stress of quickly attained fame and fortune is also often a catalyst for substance abuse that is also widely acknowledged in the entertainment industry. Nick’s meteoric rise to success no doubt played a role in his mistakes.
Nick has acknowledged he broke the law and has taken responsibility for it by pleading guilty to possession. The community and his family would not be served by his incarceration but would be served by his rehabilitation and his ability to get back to the job he loves: explaining the law to his audience while entertaining them and supporting his family.
After his fall from grace, Nick made a comeback, and though he doesn’t get the numbers he used to, his videos still get tens of thousands of views.
Given their personal and professional relationship, it’s not surprising that Nick has bolstered Megan’s bogus narrative in the Hales case.
Rekieta is a perfect tool for Jeremy Hales. He has a sizeable audience, legal gravitas, and he will only do Hales’ bidding, given his relationship with Megan.
A week and a half ago, he had Megan on to provide updates.
The Thumbnails case
In particular, they spoke about the so-called “Thumbnails case.”
The feature of the Jeremy Hales saga is an endless stream of lawsuits, countersuits, and more lawsuits.
Hales has sued people in two federal districts in Florida, got a protective order in Ohio, and there are more lawsuits in Levy County, Florida, in state courts.
Sometimes, others sue him, creating even more legal confusion.
The goal for Hales is POLAMOP- Protraction of Litigation and Multiplication of Proceedings.
He’s not trying to win a court case, only trying to create enough legal proceedings for robust YouTube content to win that way.
Last year, Michelle Preston, his main target, sued him over his unauthorized use of her name, image and likeness in his YouTube thumbnails.
YouTube thumbnails are small, clickable images previewing a video, acting as its visual "cover" to grab attention and entice clicks.
Michelle found Florida attorney Scott Stark to take her case; however, he fell ill, dying eventually, and the case was withdrawn without prejudice- so it can be refiled.
Not satisfied with the victory, Hales filed for sanctions, claiming malicious prosecution. This is a perfect opportunity for POLAMOP. No matter the outcome, by filing, there is lots to cover.
This means that Hales argues that the case has no merits.
Michelle is currently going through bankruptcy so everything should be stayed, or frozen.
Except, Bruce Matzkin, who represented her in another lawsuit, sent four unnecessary emails. The clerk entered the emails into the record and Hales attorney, Randall Shochet, filed for more sanctions.
Rekieta’s legal analysis
Initially, I contacted him to let him know that the case had not been decided on the merits, as was indicated in his show with Megan. Rekieta didn’t initially care because in his view, it is frivolous.
Cool, yeah, whatever. It’s frivolous as to the nature of the right of publicity.
The lawsuit is stupid because the right of publicity IS NOT A RIGHT TO NOT BE MOCKED. It is a right to not be used to FALSELY ENDORSE a product service or event.
Putting a face of someone you intend to TALK ABOUT is not a FALSE ENDORSEMENT.
This is not novel, or questionable. SCOTUS has clarified this issue. Preventing commentary ABOUT someone would be an impermissible infringement on the first amendment.
Refiling it as a counterclaim doesn’t make it less frivolous.
Also, murder by filings isn’t a recognized cause, to my knowledge. Sorry to hear that he died, but if responding to filings is too much stress, he had no business representing anyone.
Nic
If it’s not a commercial product, Hales may have some problems in another lawsuit, where he described his videos as commercial products.
“WEEKS continues to engage in such false and deceptive marketing campaigns and fraudulent representations for the purpose of damaging HALES and consumers (emphasis mine) without any valid legal basis,” Hales other lawsuit stated.
Hales characterization of his business in one lawsuit is in conflict with Rekieta’s analysis of the same business in another lawsuit.
His legal analysis fails, but I’ll give him a mulligan because I’m sure he didn’t know about this other lawsuit.
From there, Nick called me “a retard,” but he also managed to provide some legal analysis.
Onassis v. Dior
Tyne v time warner
Loft v Fuller
This is covered in the restatements (third) of torts which is adopted in Florida and most federal circuits.
Homegirl, this IS SO THOROUGHLY AND OBVIOUSLY DECIDED that I have trouble expressing how established it even is. It’s not an open question.
Tyne v time warner doesnt have thumbnails, but rather, ads for a movie.
I’m going to attach a screenshot. Your assignment is to take off your “im fucking dumb” glasses and put on your “I’m ready to learn from someone significantly more educated AND from the Florida Federal District court applying the law in an obviously analogous case” glasses and read it.
If you still don’t get it, you might have a learning disability.
THE VIDEO IS NOT A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT so a thumbnail is not use in trade under the law. It’s not an opinion of mine, it is the current law.
Also, the court found the action under 540.08 Knowingly without basis in fact or law (aka frivolous) in the Dec 19th Order. I’m attaching a screenshot with highlights just for you.
Bruh, this isnt an argument...it’s an education, and you are the student.
Nick
The main case he cited involved money split up from the movie The Perfect Storm starring George Clooney.
The family of the boat captain who survived the storm wanted some of the money. The filmmakers wanted to stiff them.
I think they should have paid out. Frank Lucas received $800,000 for the rights to his life for American Gangster, and he’s a gangster who sold drug and killed people.
Still, Nick cites a case which can be used as precedent. The problem is that we aren’t deciding the merits here.
In order to win a malicious prosecution or similar case, the plaintiff needs to show there is no other argument.
Comparing a movie based on a true story adapted from a book is not an exact match to a YouTuber deciding to make his neighbors the subject of a conjured storyline without their permission.
The family of Frank Tyne wasn’t trying to stop the movie, only to get a piece of profits.
Furthermore, The Perfect Storm states it’s based on a true story.
Hales claims he’s reporting facts, when he’s creating a bogus narrative, or that’s the argument.
Judge Robert Groeb is an idiot wrapped in a moron
Finally, Rekieta addressed my initial point, that the merits hadn’t been decided with a December 19, 2025, order.
The December 19 order does find that Michelle’s case has no merit.
The problem is that Preston is in bankruptcy and basic bankruptcy law pauses all matters.
So, you have a judge who ignores basic bankruptcy law. The judge is Robert Groeb, who was brought in from another county.
Judge Groeb generally presides over cases in Gilchrist County.
In Gilchrist County, Judge Groeb was on Hales’ attorney’s divorce in another county. Randall Shochet, Hales attorney, cheated on his wife, but the judge conveniently failed to put that into the final order.
He’s been brought into cases in Levy County because the regular judge, Craig DeThomasis, has created a bias against Hales, and he must be removed from any case involving Hales.
Judge Groeb’s orders are dumbfounding at best and possibly much worse.
Judge Groeb accepted Shochet’s argument that the case could move forward despite the bankruptcy.
Judge Groeb took over this case in September 2025, and his continued appearances on all things Hales in Levy County looks very suspicious.
It’s even more suspicious since he took over for Judge William Davis, who has no conflict.
Don’t expect Nick Rekieta to explore this part of the story because he’s only doing a favor for a friend.
Post-script
Check out the fundraiser to help me create more articles. Find articles one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth article.
Let’s be blunt. Jeremy Hales’s “Fed 2” case is legal buffoonery. The complaint quacks like a wounded duck and will be tossed the same way. It ignores bankruptcy stays, contradicts Hales’s own characterizations, and repackages frivolity as persecution. This is not strategy. It is content farming with captions. Nick Rekieta’s cheerleading doesn’t cure fatal defects. It spotlights them. Courts do not reward POLAMOP. They end it. Judges dismiss bad pleadings, not podcasts. “Fed 2” has no legs, no wings, and no law. It limps along on YouTube fumes until a short order puts it out of its misery.