So when the town had a 20% higher population than it currently does, you still somehow managed to have 40-50% of the youth population trick or treating at your door? Looking up a bulk bag of 300 pieces of candy, that's a bit over 6 pounds. You mean to tell me your family was buying 18-20 fucking pounds of candy to hand out in a small town for halloween? Really?
🐮 Lolcow Todd Daugherty / N9OGL / Fox Smith / Doc Dot - Domestic terrorist, ham radio sperg, self-described hikikomori, confirmed pedophile
-
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
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
well, you had kids from Taylorville, palmer, Morrisonville, Stonington, and a bunch of other small towns, like I said even people from Springfield was coming down here. buy 4 bags of 300 pieces for two nights, ...yeah, like I said that why we only did it a few years, It cost to much.
Even in dense suburban areas with populations 10-20x the size(100-200k, so still not even a metropolitan area), no one is getting 1000 kids a night for trick or treating(let alone 40% or more of the population in that age range) unless it's some shit that's practically a tourist spot due to celebrities or some other event in the neighborhood. Even if you had 5 or 6 other small towns worth of kids travelling to Taylorsville(obviously with their parents driving them), that would still mean thousands of children all managing to canvas a significant portion of the town. Looking at a current map of the place, I wouldn't expect even the local kids to hit the entire area north of Park Street, that's what 80 blocks by itself? Come on. Even the neighborhoods north of Spresser and west of Webster is still 40+ blocks. But somehow you lived in just the right location in this town to get the entirety of the town's foot traffic and then a portion of that of the rest of the county as well?
Ok, lets look at this another way. 1000 kids, lets assume they aren't loners and go in groups of 4. So 250 groups of trick or treaters. Kids knock, you answer, they say trick or treat, your pass out candy, they walk off. I think it's safe to say that interaction can be handled in 30 seconds? 250 groups times 30 seconds, is 7,500 seconds. That's 125 minutes, or roughly 2 hours. You mean to tell me your family spent 2 hours nonstop handing out candy? Trick or treaters going about for the couple hours after it finally starts to get dark is reasonable, expecting anyone to believe there was ever such a rush to your door that it was literally nonstop is not believable.
edit: Wait a minute two nights? Why would you be handing out candy to trick or treaters for two nights?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
Halloween is two nights here.
Main cross is where I live, it is the main street of town which goes east to west. it is called main cross because at the town square it crosses Main Street. Main Cross like I said goes east to west while main street goes north and south and they cross on the square. Main Cross is where the "old money" lives, so people tend to hit it. I think we only did Halloween three years and then we stopped. I want to get the remodeling down on the house so we can big Halloween parties and start handing candy out like old time. But that will probably not happen anytime soon.
Prove me wrong... you claim I'm going to jail, again prove me wrong.
1. The affidavit was not written properly.
2. The search warrant was a general warrant.
3. the warrant was quashed under a motion to dismiss in 2018.
4. The police used a "reasonable person standard" which the US supreme court stated they can't use.
5. Illinois law states that the person must have knowledge of the image.
6. the image of the child under Illinois must be engaged in sexual activity or the image must be lewd. the image is neither.
Main cross is where I live, it is the main street of town which goes east to west. it is called main cross because at the town square it crosses Main Street. Main Cross like I said goes east to west while main street goes north and south and they cross on the square. Main Cross is where the "old money" lives, so people tend to hit it. I think we only did Halloween three years and then we stopped. I want to get the remodeling down on the house so we can big Halloween parties and start handing candy out like old time. But that will probably not happen anytime soon.
Prove me wrong... you claim I'm going to jail, again prove me wrong.
1. The affidavit was not written properly.
2. The search warrant was a general warrant.
3. the warrant was quashed under a motion to dismiss in 2018.
4. The police used a "reasonable person standard" which the US supreme court stated they can't use.
5. Illinois law states that the person must have knowledge of the image.
6. the image of the child under Illinois must be engaged in sexual activity or the image must be lewd. the image is neither.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
Did the kids from Shelbyville who tie onions around thier belts also swing by for some candy corn?
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
The fact that your IQ is about room temperature is all we need to prove you wrong. Your interpretation of the law and how it applies to your case is wrong. The proof will be when none of this goes your way.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
HOW???
1. The affidavit was not written properly.
The Affidavit is suppose to have 1. Affiant’s name, title, experience, jurisdictional authority. Emphasize training, experience and knowledge relevant to the type of crime named in the warrant. Remember, training and experience add to probable cause. 2. Statutory violations involved in investigation and other relevant legal citations (i.e., definition statutes, regulations, authority). 3. Statement of purpose of affidavit. “This application is submitted in support of my request for the issuance of a search warrant for the residence located at 1234 Main Street, Anytown, State.” 4. Overview/summary of investigation. The more complex the investigation, the more important this “executive summary” section becomes. 5. Statement of probable cause. for example: “This affidavit establishes probable cause to believe evidence of controlled substance distribution, in violation of 21 USC 841(a)(1)&(b), will be found at the residence located at 1234 Main Street, Anytown, State” or “there is probable cause to believe James Blow committed the offense of controlled substance distribution, in violation of…” 6. Statement of limited presentation of facts. “This affidavit does not include all of the facts known to me, but only those facts relevant and sufficient to establish probable cause.” 7. Definition section, if necessary. Include definitions if you need to use special terminology in the affidavit. 8. Facts, to include support for each and every element of the offense or item to be seized (addressed next). 9. Conclusion. Tie the facts together, and ask for what you want. my affidavit doesn't have any of that. it only has that they received a message from the FBi that there was a threat, and no investigation was carried out.
2. The search warrant was a general warrant.
The warrant states the following "Any and all computers, as defined in 720 ILCS 5/16D-2; any and all magnetic or optical media, including but not limited to hard disk drives, floppy disks, compact discs, DVDs, USB devices, and any and all passwords or other computer security devices, and any and all information and data stored in the form of magnetic or electronic coding on computer media or on media capable of being read by a computer or with the aid of computer equipment, any and all computer software, any and all evidence, data or information pertaining to the possession including but not limited to: any and all evidence of dominion and control over the computer, specifically, but not limited to, a computer possessing MAC address "EC:4F:82:29:B4:03" or IP address "72.9.123.215"; peer to peer file trading software; any and all information pertaining to dates and times of access to the computer; any and all information pertaining to internet searches pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence directed towards schools or public officials; records and other items which evidence ownership or use of computer equipment found in the above residence; including but not limited to sales receipts, bills for internet access and handwritten notes, records evidencing occupancy or ownership of the premises described above including but not limited to utility and telephone bills, mail envelopes or address correspondence."
The federal courts, including the US Supreme court has stated that search warrants that are vague, or overboard are general search warrants. The courts has also stated that terms like "not limited" and "Any and all information" makes the warrant a general warrant. When writing a search warrant the warrant must specify exactly what is to search and exactly what is to be seized. When it comes to computer who have been very specific. As the court in United States v. Fleet Management Ltd - 2007
"The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of persons to be secure from "unreasonable searches and seizures" and provides that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. Probable cause is established if there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). Meanwhile, the particularity requirement demands that the place to be searched and items to be seized be described with sufficient particularity so as to leave "nothing . . . to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant." Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925); Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927) ("As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.") The "principal means today for effectuating the rights secured by the Fourth Amendment is through the judicially created exclusionary rule." United States v. Christine, 687 F.2d 749, 757 (1982)". As a threshold argument in their Motion to Suppress, Defendants contend that the search warrant for the data on the three computer hard drives constituted a general warrant, which placed no limitations on the Government's computer search, and that under Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent, all evidence seized pursuant to that general warrant must be suppressed. We agree."
By requiring that warrants particularly describe property to be seized, the Fourth Amendment prohibits the issuance of general warrants. See Christine, 687 F.2d at 752 (3d Cir. 1982) ("The particularity requirement `makes general searches . . . impossible.'" (quoting Marron, 275 U.S. at 196, 48 S.Ct. 74)). Indeed, the Amendment's particularity requirement is specifically intended "to prevent the police from undertaking a general, exploratory rummaging through a person's belongings." Bartholomew v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 221 F.3d 425, 428 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 690 F.2d 60, 64 (3d Cir. 1982)). A general warrant is one that so clearly violates the particularity requirement that it "vests the executing officers with unbridled discretion to conduct an exploratory rummaging through [defendants'] papers in search of criminal evidence." Christine, 687 F.2d at 753; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (stating that the problem with general warrants is that they authorize "a general exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings"). "The uniformly applied rule is that a search conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional." Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 559, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004) (quoting Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 988 n. 5, 104 S.Ct. 3424, 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984)). Furthermore, "it is beyond doubt that all evidence seized pursuant to a general warrant must be suppressed." Christine, 687 F.2d at 758.
The Government does not argue that the affidavit established probable cause for a generalized seizure of all of the data on the three hard drives or that there was any other basis for such a generalized seizure.
The Government asks that we focus on the particularity with which Attachment A to the warrant application identifies the three computer hard drives themselves, and emphasizes that the warrant clarifies the "any and all data" language by following it with the phrase "including, but not limited to [data] relating to the ship's operation, engineering, maintenance, pollution control equipment, navigational charts, and crew." We do not find these arguments persuasive. First, it is plainly insufficient to identify the computer hard drives with particularity as the hard drives were merely the property to be searched, not the property to be seized. As the Fourth Amendment makes clear, a warrant must identify with particularity both the property to be searched and the property to be seized, and here, it is the description of the property to be seized that is at issue. See U.S. Const. amend. IV (requiring warrants to "particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized").
Second, we find that the warrant's "including, but not limited to" clause does not add particularity to the otherwise general warrant as it, by its own terms, imposes no limitation on the data to be seized. While the Government argues that "the warrant describes the data to be seized as relating to the ship's operation, engineering, maintenance, pollution control equipment, navigational charts, and crew," that is simply not the case. (Gov't Mem. at 29.) Rather, as stated above, the warrant describes the data to be seized as "any and all data in the computers . . . including, but not limited to" the general categories of data referenced by the Government. As such, it merely lists those general categories of data as types of data that are necessarily included in the broad seizure power. Thus, in actuality, the warrant placed no restriction on the data that the Government could seize from the hard drives.
"We also reject the Government's suggestion that the affidavit that accompanied the warrant application somehow limited the scope of the warrant itself. "The Fourth Amendment by its terms requires particularity in the warrant, not in the supporting documents." Groh, 540 U.S. at 557, 124 S.Ct. 1284. Accordingly, "[t]he fact that the [warrant] application adequately described the `things to be seized' does not save the warrant from facial invalidity." Id. Furthermore, most Courts of Appeals, including the Third Circuit, have held that an affidavit that accompanies the warrant can only be used to construe the scope of the warrant if the warrant "uses appropriate words of incorporation." Id. at 557-58, 124 S.Ct. 1284 (citing cases); United States v. Yusuf, 461 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Groh, 540 U.S. at 558, 124 S.Ct. 1284). Here, the warrant did not incorporate the affidavit by reference and as a result, it cannot be used to add the particularity that the warrant itself is plainly lacking." and that is just one case.
3. the warrant was quashed under a motion to dismiss in 2018.
In the motion to dismiss it states "Any warrant or summon previously issued is hereby quashed."
Any is defined as used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many. this is both the definition in the standard dictionary as well as in Black's Law Dictionary. Therefore, Under the definition of ANY, the warrant, including the search warrant was quashed.
ANY - used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many. (webster dictionary)
ANY. Some; one out of many; an indefinite number. State v. Pierson, 204 Iowa 837, 216 N. W. 43, 44. One indiscriminately of whatever kind or quantity. Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. Winton, C.C.A.Tenn., 131 F.2d 780, 782. One or some (indefinitely). Slegel v. Siegel, 135 N.J.Eq. 5, 37 A.2d 57, 58. "Any" does not necessarily mean only one person, but may have reference to more than one or to many. Doherty v. King, Tex.Civ.
App., 183 S.W.2d 1004, 1007. As a synonym for "some". Kayser v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California, 234 Iowa 310, 12 N.W.2d 582, 587. It is often synonymous with "either", State v. Antonio, 3 Brev. (S.C.) 562; Carr-Lowry Lumber Co. v. Martin, 144 Miss. 106, 109 So. 849, 850. And is given the full force of "every" or "all", Glen Alden Coal Co. v. City of Scranton, 282 Pa45, 127 A. 307, 308; Southern Ry. Co. v. Gaston County, 200 N.C. 780, 158 S.E. 481. Its generality may be restricted by the context, Drainage Dist. No. 1 of Bates County v. Bates County, Mo.Sup., 216 S.W. 949, 953. Thus, the giving of a right to do some act "at any time" is commonly construed
as meaning within a reasonable time. Paulson v. Weeks, 80 Or. 468, 157 P. 590, 592, Ann.Cas. 1918D, 741. And the words "any other" following the enumeration of particular classes are to be read as "other such like," and include only others of like kind or character. Southern Ry. Co. v. Columbia Compress Co., C.C.A.S.C., 280 F. 344,
348. (Black law Dictionary)
4. The police used a "reasonable person standard" which the US supreme court stated they can't use.
In Elonis v United States (US Supreme Court 2015) the US Supreme Court ruled that the police and government when it comes to threats that are "true threats" they aren't allowed to use a reasonable person standard, because that sets the bar too low, and would capture speech that is protected under the first amendment. Only "true threats" are not protected under the first amendment. The US Supreme court stated that a selective standard with a men rea is required to determine if the speech falls under the category of a "true threat". The court also stated that the reasonable person standard only applies to civil case and criminal, but under criminal law there has to be a men rea. In Counterman v Colorado (2023) The US Supreme Court ruled that the mens rea for a "true threat" must be reckless. stating that the individual has to be aware, and disregarded a substantial risk that their statements would be viewed as threatening violence. The Taylorville police used the reasonable person standard. their view was that is a threat, that your name, therefore a reasonable person would be you posted. they didn't feel they needed to investigate the matter, because they were using a standard that they should have used to begin with. The ignored the fact they were told that night that the site didn't require a login, their view and statement was "we know nothing about that" they are lazy ass cops who get paid a lot of money, for doing their job half ass.
5. Illinois law states that the person must have knowledge that the person in the image is over 18 years old.
Under Illinois law 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(b)(1) it states "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." I've never the image, and I don't know how the image got there.
6. the image of the child under Illinois must be engaged in sexual activity or the image must be lewd. the image is neither.
The image under Illinois law 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(1)(vii) it states "A person commits child pornography who: films, videotapes, photographs, or otherwise depicts or portrays by means of any similar visual medium or reproduction or depicts by computer any child whom he or she knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18 or any person with a severe or profound intellectual disability where such child or person with a severe or profound intellectual disability is: (vii) depicted or portrayed in any pose, posture or setting involving a lewd exhibition of the unclothed or transparently clothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if such person is female, a fully or partially developed breast of the child or other person". The state is required to use a 6-prong test to determine if the image in question is lewd. (People of the State of Illinois v Drew W Barger - 2020)
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Best thing you can do while there is an active case against you is go on a public forum and incriminate yourself further. A winning legal strategy if I ever saw one.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
How am I incriminating against myself? to incriminate against oneself one has to admit to doing it or make a statement that they did it. I have done none of that, in fact quite the opposite. In fact the word incriminate to charge with or show evidence or proof of involvement in a crime or fault : accuse. 2. : to cause to appear guilty of or responsible for something. I am innocent.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
TL;DR, Retard is saying retarded things he doesn't understand.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
He keeps repeating the same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over and never stops........ He won't release all the discovery because he knows the evidence is far worse and embarrassing to him. So he just shows the parts he wants us to see but not all of it. He just can't figure out why talking about the case can only harm him and can not in any way help him. And notice how much an an expert he is about an image he has never claimed to have seen. However......
Toad is a KNOW IT ALL. Just wants to argue online but the Judge, District Attorney and Public defender are having none of it.
This real lawyer explains the KNOW IT ALL clients and why they do it. It all comes being an very insecure person who feels the need to be "proven right".
At one minute, this guy explains exactly what Toad is doing with the KNOW IT ALL shit.
Toad is a KNOW IT ALL. Just wants to argue online but the Judge, District Attorney and Public defender are having none of it.
This real lawyer explains the KNOW IT ALL clients and why they do it. It all comes being an very insecure person who feels the need to be "proven right".
At one minute, this guy explains exactly what Toad is doing with the KNOW IT ALL shit.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
prove me wrong...put up or shut up!
Wrong, the reason I don't show it to you is because YOU'RE NOT FUCKING ENTITLED TO SEE IT!! YOUR CASE PART OF THE CASE, THEREFORE YOUR NOT PRIVY TO THAT INFORMATION
Like I said BITCH! PROVE ME WRONG. PUT UP OR SHUT YOU FUCKING TROLL
FYI FIX YOUR WEBSITE....
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
You dumb liberate fucktard. To incriminate yourself all you have to do is make a statement. The smart thing to do is just plead the Fifth and shut the fuck up about the case to everyone but your attorney. Too bad you're a retard that should have been drowned at a young age and don't understand such things.
We have, you're just too fucking stupid to understand anything we tell you. You know we're right that's why you're so mad.
Sites working just fine for me. Works better than your blog.
Kill yourself
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
Learn to read fuckwit. You're in your what? Fifties? and still haven't been able to do that. I've taken care of downies that were at least able to read a children's book. What's your excuse to being unable to do so? Too busy looking at the children instead?
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
Well then retard, why are you even discussing the case here since you won't release all the facts about it? How are we supposed to give our opinion on things you are not disclosing? And you seem obsessed with getting our opinion and for you to be a Mr Know It All.
But even you admitted here on Kiwifarms, you are the one trolling.
And of course on top of the constant lying.
I thought N9OGL's response on his own shitty forum that no one is allowed to post at is pretty funny. Ignore the first post where he just repeats himself for the nth+1 time and look at all those bad things he is calling us on Kiwifarms further down the thread.
1. At least those people have some teeth, the retard had to get his pulled out because of his mental retardation like those with Downs Syndrome.
2. He still lives with his parents at age 55 who have full financial guardianship over him. I rather live in one of those trailers then need my mommy to still wipe my ass and feed me.
3. He keeps getting arrested but it's a big conspiracy that 100s of people are wrong and he is right
4. He finished school a year late in Special Education and was in a program where the National Association of Retarded Persons funded his retard to work program in high school.
5. And he is a KNOW IT ALL. And finally this response by him
Retarded N9OGL said:
Remember, he's 55 years of age.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
Todd "When in doubt and can't understand what a person posted, just claim that it's wrong and that they never proved anything, that will show them!"
How much money does your parents spend on safety helmets on you a year so you don't bash your head against objects like any other downie?
Did they tell you were special because you rode on the stubby coach?
How much money does your parents spend on safety helmets on you a year so you don't bash your head against objects like any other downie?
Did they tell you were special because you rode on the stubby coach?
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Pedo says what?
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
It's impossible how stupid you are. Fucking hell.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
You should see all these nice things the pedo has to say about his own lawyer
And he also said that the state had 3 years to keep his computers for the investigation to continue. So they turned them over to the FBI, who found child porn while searching images related to a school shooting threat. Once they saw the child porn image, they stopped the search and got a federal search warrant for the child porn. Of course, the pedo, since he's a KNOW IT ALL, wasn't even aware of this until he was arrested in September 2022.
And here's the thing. He wants to get off on a technicality where's he is basically admitting he downloaded the child porn and the state forgot to cross the t's... which will convince no one in his community, or his family, or on the internet. I would think Mr Know It All would want to take the case to trial where he claims the image isn't even child porn, be found innocent, then he can boast it wasn't child porn.
And as this real lawyer puts it with KNOW IT ALLS, why don't they just represent themselves since they KNOW IT ALL? (start at 38 second mark) and at 8:01 he points out mental issues with KNOW IT ALLS.
And he also said that the state had 3 years to keep his computers for the investigation to continue. So they turned them over to the FBI, who found child porn while searching images related to a school shooting threat. Once they saw the child porn image, they stopped the search and got a federal search warrant for the child porn. Of course, the pedo, since he's a KNOW IT ALL, wasn't even aware of this until he was arrested in September 2022.
And here's the thing. He wants to get off on a technicality where's he is basically admitting he downloaded the child porn and the state forgot to cross the t's... which will convince no one in his community, or his family, or on the internet. I would think Mr Know It All would want to take the case to trial where he claims the image isn't even child porn, be found innocent, then he can boast it wasn't child porn.
And as this real lawyer puts it with KNOW IT ALLS, why don't they just represent themselves since they KNOW IT ALL? (start at 38 second mark) and at 8:01 he points out mental issues with KNOW IT ALLS.