🐮 Lolcow Todd Daugherty / N9OGL / Fox Smith / Doc Dot - Domestic terrorist, ham radio sperg, self-described hikikomori, confirmed pedophile

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJ 447
  • Start date Start date
  • 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
N9OGL said:
UNDER ILLINOIS LAW the person must be aware that the image was that of a person under the age of 18. The law action states:

(720 ILCS 5/11-20.1)(b)(1) "It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of child pornography that the defendant reasonably believed, under all of the circumstances, that the child was 18 years of age or older or that the person was not a person with a severe or profound intellectual disability but only where, prior to the act or acts giving rise to a prosecution under this Section, he or she took some affirmative action or made a bonafide inquiry designed to ascertain whether the child was 18 years of age or older or that the person was not a person with a severe or profound intellectual disability and his or her reliance upon the information so obtained was clearly reasonable."

The issue is when a person doesn't know the image is there that becomes a problem. In fact, the image in my case has no view or create date on it, meaning it was never looked at. Not to mention the image under Illinois law is not child porn.
Click to expand...

So when they uncover your actual stash, you can just say “I didn’t know!”, and like that, the cuffs come off!

My brother in Christ, you are industrial-grade stupid.
 
I see that this legitimate retard hasn't read 18 U.S. Code Chapter 110. Other than there only being "one photo" he took no action regarding the authorities about it so that they could take his electronics and look into, they had to do that while having a warrant. He also didn't try to destroy the evidence if it "mysteriously appeared" on his computer and had no prior knowledge of it. Given what he has posted in the past that's bullshit. No prior knowledge of the photo wont hold up. Mind you, this is only at the Federal Level. It's different for each State. In Illinois all such crimes are felonies and will be up to the court to decide whether or not the image is child pornography, not this retard. If it is he'll be in prison for a number of years and be registered as a lifetime sexual offender. There are a few ways his public attorney could fight this but hasn't taken any of them. Why? Because fuck him, that's why. The State isn't paying enough. That would change if he was paying for it. Not to mention probable cause hurts one of those methods. Even if evidence is suppressed it doesn't mean prosecutor has to dismiss the case. Again, look at his internet history.

Better hope the charge doesn't get upgrade to aggravated child pornography.
First one is a Class 1 Felony, that means up to 15 years in prison, minimum of four.
Second one is a Class X felony, he'll be in jail for up to 30. Minimum of six.
 
The federal government didn't go after me because 18 USC 2252(c) which is affirmative defense under federal child pornography law which state the person must have more than three items. A person with less than three items might have got those items by accident or they were downloaded unknown to the person. a person with more than three items the US considers you a collector. Child porn must also be image of real children engaged in sex, (cartoons and drawings are not classified as child porn) They have to use the DOST Test, it's a six prong test to determine if it's child porn. It doesn't have be all six prongs, but just can't be one.

The state Illinois doesn't care, in fact they are now trying to pass a law against virtual child porn made by AI.
 
He's on the verge of another mental breakdown. His public defender isn't listening to him (do you blame her?) and they are all conspiring against him. Poor Toad.
toad crying again - Copy.png

"
April 18th 2024


I had thought I could handle them but they seem to get worse and worse - the nightmares of being put in jail again. I thought I could handle the trama but it seems to be getting worse. This whole is a bad joke, I mean that lawyer of mine, I don't shit but waste time, and as for that judge, why kind of judge doesn't look at the affidavit and warrant to see if they had probable cause. No instead he takes the state (THE GROUP THAT IS LYING TO HIM) They didn't have probable cause and the search warrant was a general warrant! If this is how the justice system works I want nothing to do with or the state or country that represent it. When you have a lawyer that seems not to being doing anything and a so-called 'impartial juge' who isn't and seems to take the state word on stuff like weither they had probable cause, then you had that public defender who just sits there, is that JUSTICE. if it is then it's bullshit.

I mean look, is this valid affidavit?? is this not a general warrant?? "
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N9OGL said:
The federal government didn't go after me because 18 USC 2252(c) which is affirmative defense under federal child pornography law which state the person must have more than three items. A person with less than three items might have got those items by accident or they were downloaded unknown to the person. a person with more than three items the US considers you a collector. Child porn must also be image of real children engaged in sex, (cartoons and drawings are not classified as child porn) They have to use the DOST Test, it's a six prong test to determine if it's child porn. It doesn't have be all six prongs, but just can't be one.

The state Illinois doesn't care, in fact they are now trying to pass a law against virtual child porn made by AI.
Click to expand...
Read the whole law retard. Oh wait! You can't fucking understand what you read lol. I listed what they look for in the case. You only meet one of those conditions however your internet history proves that you do look at that shit. Kill yourself before the niggers give you AIDS lol.
Dirty Harry said:
He's on the verge of another mental breakdown. His public defender isn't listening to him (do you blame her?) and they are all conspiring against him. Poor Toad.

"
April 18th 2024


I had thought I could handle them but they seem to get worse and worse - the nightmares of being put in jail again. I thought I could handle the trama but it seems to be getting worse. This whole is a bad joke, I mean that lawyer of mine, I don't shit but waste time, and as for that judge, why kind of judge doesn't look at the affidavit and warrant to see if they had probable cause. No instead he takes the state (THE GROUP THAT IS LYING TO HIM) They didn't have probable cause and the search warrant was a general warrant! If this is how the justice system works I want nothing to do with or the state or country that represent it. When you have a lawyer that seems not to being doing anything and a so-called 'impartial juge' who isn't and seems to take the state word on stuff like weither they had probable cause, then you had that public defender who just sits there, is that JUSTICE. if it is then it's bullshit.

I mean look, is this valid affidavit?? is this not a general warrant?? "
Click to expand...
He should be afraid. His PD is doing fuck all to help him so he's screwed and they wont waste money to bring in professionals. If he wanted to actually fight this then he should have hired a lawyer. Instead his PD sees him as a lost cause and prolonging the inevitable. Hopefully he gets the full 15 years just so his parents can take a break. Or 30 if the government thinks the image is under 13. Sadly though he'll most likely only get the minimum.
 
N9OGL said:
Your lying, I never did such a thing as "jackoff in the bathroom" nor have I ever worked at Taco Bell. Nor have ever posted on 4chan or Nimbusters. Fucking Liar!
Click to expand...
"you're"

No I am not lying Todd, I am just repeating what your fellow Nimbuster say about you. Lloyd Davies, NewsGuy and someone named Mark Price. They say first you got fired from your job at Walmart for deviant behavior then Taco Bell for going into the bathroom and jerking off when a group of 5th grade girls came into the store. Something about writing stories about raping 12 year old girls and your manager. This sounds just like you Todd.

You would post cartoon child pornography on Nimbusters and say you were just protecting 1st amendment right. It was what you were doing on Twitter before they banned you, I saw that myself. Lloyd Davies says he is 100% sure that you made the threat against that school Todd. He's also sure you are a pedophile.

Face it Todd, you are going to prison. You'll likely get raped and die there.
pedogun.jpg

Here is the picture you posted when you threatened the school Todd. What lie will you tell about it?
The threat where you threatened to make that local school into a Sandy Hook?
 
N9OGL said:
Child porn must also be image of real children engaged in sex,
Click to expand...
This isn't true. Nude child modeling or hell, even non-nude child modeling if it's clearly produced with the prurient interest in mind, can qualify as child porn federally.

Also btw were you actually born in Douchebagistan? I know one other guy from there but he is in prison in Pennsylvania nowadays.
 
Again, this state action not a federal one, under state law for it be child pornography it has to be a person under the age of 18 engaged in a sexual act or the image or movie must be lewd. The person must have known or reasonable believe that the person was over the age of 18. Again, this state law, not federal law.

Not for one image, even the feds won't go after someone for just one image, it's a waste of time.
 
N9OGL said:
This is federal this is a state law I'm referring too. This is not federal case


Fixed it
Click to expand...
Again, read Section 2256 of Title 18 you dumb fuck. Oh wait! You're retarded and wont understand it and will get all mad at us for being born normal and having better reading comprehension than a gnat. Unlike you.
For those of you interested and able to read unlike Todd. Look up the United States v. Solon case. The guy got fucked up due to malware supposedly. The case is a good read though. It's still going on 17 years after.
 
Last edited:
Well according to the court records he had images (plural meaning more the one) I'm being charged by the state of Illinois for one image. Finally as I stated before the warrant they had was quashed and they searched the computers without a warrant. Which is illegal
 
N9OGL said:
Well according to the court records he had images (plural meaning more the one) I'm being charged by the state of Illinois for one image. Finally as I stated before the warrant they had was quashed and they searched the computers without a warrant. Which is illegal
Click to expand...
I don't know why you're going on about that. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You can't read law let alone anything we type here. Why not just die already before you waste tax payers money in prison?
I can also tell you didn't read the case. Fucking moron. After all, you're not going to read literally hundreds of pages in less than an hour. Not with your retardation at least.
 
Anonymus Fluhre said:
I don't know why you're going on about that. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You can't read law let alone anything we type here. Why not just die already before you waste tax payers money in prison?
I can also tell you didn't read the case. Fucking moron. After all, you're not going to read literally hundreds of pages in less than an hour. Not with your retardation at least.
Click to expand...
Actually, yeah, I do read the law. 18 USC 2252(c) is the affirmative defense in the US Pornography law. Under it is states that if you have three or less you can use the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense is a way out of it. The case you were referring to United States v. Solon he had multiple images, therefore he could not use affirmative defense, because you have to have three or less. Yeah, I know the case was about him claiming the material was put was on his computer through malware but I not being charged under federal law, I'm being charged by the state of Illinois. States can make their own rules governing child pornography and in ILLINOIS the person has to have some knowledge of the material being on their computer, it's not a federal law, it's a law here in Illinois for those who in Illinois. Because I'm being charged under Illinois law, for one image, not multiple. 18 USC 2256 as YOU post is the definition for the federal child porn statue.

The files they were looking for was 1. A TOR Program, 2. computer access logs, 3. browser history no where did it state for them to look for images. So show me in the warrant or affidavit, that it states they could search for images? No where in the warrant or the affidavit for the search warrant does it state that they were allowed to look for images, so why were they looking in images.
 
N9OGL said:
Actually, yeah, I do read the law. 18 USC 2252(c) is the affirmative defense in the US Pornography law. Under it is states that if you have three or less you can use the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense is a way out of it. The case you were referring to United States v. Solon he had multiple images, therefore he could not use affirmative defense, because you have to have three or less. Yeah, I know the case was about him claiming the material was put was on his computer through malware but I not being charged under federal law, I'm being charged by the state of Illinois. States can make their own rules governing child pornography and in ILLINOIS the person has to have some knowledge of the material being on their computer, it's not a federal law, it's a law here in Illinois for those who in Illinois. Because I'm being charged under Illinois law, for one image, not multiple. 18 USC 2256 as YOU post is the definition for the federal child porn statue.
Click to expand...
You may read it but you don't understand it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom