🐮 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:
I was talking in general; I don't care what you, the people in this town or state think.

actually, In Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), the Supreme Court held that when an officer of the law (in this case, an FBI officer) conducts a search which violates the Fourth Amendment, that officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the officer proves that a reasonable officer could have believed that the search constitutionally complied with the Fourth Amendment. The relevant question that a court should ask is whether a reasonable officer could have believed the warrantless search to be lawful, considering clearly established law and the information which the officer possessed. The Supreme Court also held that "subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant."

In my case 1. the warrant was a general warrant and those are flat out unconstitutional. 2. the warrant was quashed, and the search of the computers should have stopped then and there but didn't.
Click to expand...
All that is understood.

And while you may not care, what's at issue to most people is not a technicality about whether or not the warrant was valid, but whether or not you actually had "child sexual abuse material" on your computer - and how it got there.

Given how inept and, seemingly, malicious your local police have been with regard to the numerous hoax complaints that have thus-far all resulted in charges being dropped against you, I can believe that there might have been shenanigans with something placed on your device after it left your possession [which, as I understand it, was immediately upon your arrest during the hoax "school shooting" event (that never should have resulted in you actually being arrested until a more thorough investigation was done but for you being uncooperative and unnecessarily antagonistic with the police)].

Your focus should always have been forensic analysis of the device in question; it was my understanding that there was evidence that the item in question appeared on the device after it was removed from your possession. If that's the case, that's what you should be focusing on, not getting into internet slap-fights on the far.ms of all places with Brian Crow acolytes like "Dirty Harry" et al.

Not that I believe anyone actually involved with the case cares about nonsense posted here, but you have a right to remain silent for a reason.
 
We don't know how it got there; it was again JUST ONE IMAGE. I have not seen at all, so I don't know what it is. I do know that the police got the warrant on April 21, 2018, and didn't hand it over to the FBI until May 4th. I also know from discovery that there is a note in the evidence logs that states "stays at TPD" and it signed by the assistant chief of police. the note was next to one of the computers, that was login as "evidence" and it was later the same computer that had the image on it.
 
N9OGL said:
I'm going to sue the city and state, buy me a nice little island in the south pacific. clear water, white beaches and no internet bullshit
Click to expand...
LOL Illinois doesn't even have that much money.
 
Anonymus Fluhre said:
This pedophile retard doesn't know shit about the law. I don't even know why he tries. He should find the nearest overpass and jump head first off of it.

He couldn't even last 15 minutes without his parents.
Click to expand...
prove me wrong...

1. The warrant was a general warrant.

2. the warrant was quashed in April of 2018

3. The image in question was NOT under Illinois law child porn.

like I said on my website to people, either put up or shut up.
 
The court was having none of your nonsense two weeks ago and kept the conditions of your bond...

It's not us you have to convince, it's the judge and District Attorney....

But even if you get off on a technical, everyone will still know you are a pedophile who downloads child pornography. If you want us to give a fair accessment, show us all the discovery,not just the parts you want us to show, show it all.

09/21/2023SA MCWARD PRESENT; DEFENDANT WITH ATTY SENGER; DEFENDANT HAS MOTION
TO COMPEL ON FILE; COURT ORDERS STATE TO ATTEMPT EFFORTS TO FIND DEFENDANT'S FEDERAL FILE AS REQUESTED BY DEFENDANT; MOTION TO COMPEL RESET FOR HEARING ON OCTOBER 5, 2023 AT 8:30 A.M.; AS TO ISSUES OF PT RELEASE CONDITIONS, COURT HEARS "PROBABLE CAUSE" STATEMENT FROM STATE REGARDING BACKGROUND OF CASE; COURT DENIES DEFENSE REQUEST TO MODIFY PT CONDITIONS ORDER.
 
Dirty Harry said:
The court was having none of your nonsense two weeks ago and kept the conditions of your bond...

It's not us you have to convince, it's the judge and District Attorney....

But even if you get off on a technical, everyone will still know you are a pedophile who downloads child pornography. If you want us to give a fair accessment, show us all the discovery,not just the parts you want us to show, show it all.

09/21/2023SA MCWARD PRESENT; DEFENDANT WITH ATTY SENGER; DEFENDANT HAS MOTION
TO COMPEL ON FILE; COURT ORDERS STATE TO ATTEMPT EFFORTS TO FIND DEFENDANT'S FEDERAL FILE AS REQUESTED BY DEFENDANT; MOTION TO COMPEL RESET FOR HEARING ON OCTOBER 5, 2023 AT 8:30 A.M.; AS TO ISSUES OF PT RELEASE CONDITIONS, COURT HEARS "PROBABLE CAUSE" STATEMENT FROM STATE REGARDING BACKGROUND OF CASE; COURT DENIES DEFENSE REQUEST TO MODIFY PT CONDITIONS ORDER.
Click to expand...
First off you are full of shit. The reason the bond issue was brought up was because of Illinois Safe T act law. This law went into effect at the beginning of September. ANYONE in Illinois that is incarcerated has to have a hearing regarding bail. We are filing for an appeal because they're so - called "probable cause' is not there and the judge apparently only want to listen to what the State had to say.

Nope it was child pornography, under Illinois Child pornography law has to have some kind of lewdness or coyness to it. An image of a child nude in Illinois does not constitute child porn. People of State of Illinois v Barger (2020)
 
Nope it was child pornography, under Illinois Child pornography law has to have some kind of lewdness or coyness to it. An image of a child nude in Illinois does not constitute child porn.
Click to expand...

So you do know exactly what the image contains...

No appeal has been filed.

Oh, and you never asked for your computers back in 2018, in fact, you didn't even ask for them back until 2021, which by then, had a federal search warrant on them.

Don't get pissed off at us, we are the one's who told you to hire a real lawyer in 2018, but since YOU KNOW EVERYTHING, you didn't listen.

By the way, the charges in 2018 and 2015 are still not dismissed as your own public defender told you.

But like I said, YOU KNOW EVERYTHING!!!!
 
Dirty Harry said:
So you do know exactly what the image contains...

No appeal has been filed.

Oh, and you never asked for your computers back in 2018, in fact, you didn't even ask for them back until 2021, which by then, had a federal search warrant on them.

Don't get pissed off at us, we are the one's who told you to hire a real lawyer in 2018, but since YOU KNOW EVERYTHING, you didn't listen.

By the way, the charges in 2018 and 2015 are still not dismissed as your own public defender told you.

But like I said, YOU KNOW EVERYTHING!!!!
Click to expand...
I was told in court what the image was. The image is of nude girl with her hair over her breast in the nude, with her both arms out holding a blanket up behind her. That under Illinois law doesn't constitute child porn.

There will appeal, you take it up with my lawyer, she the one that's going to file it.

Actually YEAH, I asked twice for my computers back, the state and police refused to hand them over. the federal warrant is also invalid because 1. they wait long to get it, therefore there is staleness. 2. it is based on the first warrant being valid, which is not because the state in its motion to dismiss proved that there was no login requirement on that site, and while I sat in jail more threats were being made, and they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I did it. 3. The original warrant was quashed, not mention it was a general warrant.
I hired real lawyer in 2010 and he fucked me. So far public defenders have served me pretty good. SO, FUCK YOUR REAL LAWYER BULLSHIT! FYI public defenders are also lawyers who passed the bar exam, and therefor are real lawyers under the law.

The 2015 case was dismissed, in fact I saw Judge Spears the other day at the restaurant and was going to have a little chat with him, in still thinking of having a chat and have him as a witness, since he was the one that dismissed the 2015 case. In fact he reprimanded State Attorney Mike Havara for "wasting his time"
 
I was told in court what the image was. The image is of nude girl with her hair over her breast in the nude, with her both arms out holding a blanket up behind her. That under Illinois law doesn't constitute child porn.
Click to expand...

No, the expert witness for the state said the image violated the Illinois Statue on child porn, your own lawyer stipulated to it and didn't challenge it, and the judge said it did.

10/13/2022 SA; PDS W/ D IN CUST OF CCJ; ISP INVEST DORWART SWORN AND TESTIFIES; CT FINDS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE FELONY; D WAIVES FORMAL ARRAIGNMENT; PNG; JURY DEMAND; ON D'S MOTION PT ONLY 11/22/22 AT 11AM.

And the 2015 wasn't dismisssed, your own lawyer told you that, or are you forgetting the lies you tell again???

There will appeal, you take it up with my lawyer, she the one that's going to file it.
Click to expand...

It's not up to me to take it up with her, it's up to you.

The 2015 case was dismissed, in fact I saw Judge Spears the other day at the restaurant and was going to have a little chat with him,
Click to expand...

But you didn't, did you chicken shit????
In fact he reprimanded State Attorney Mike Havara for "wasting his time"
Click to expand...

There's no reprimand on file. Show us this in writing. Since you're a known liar, your word isn't good enough.

So again, despite all your rambling, are you going to show us all the discovery so we can give an honest opnion or not since you keep asking us???

I can't help it if you were too stupid to hire a lawyer back in 2018.......
 
N9OGL said:
Your focus should always have been forensic analysis of the device in question;

We are still doing that, we are attacking a lot of things in this case.
Click to expand...
Once again, it looks like I'll have to call your mom and dad. Heartbreaking really, they are getting too old to have to keep spanking you. Can't you let them have any peace.

You are going to be SOOOOOO grounded Todd.
 
Dirty Harry said:
No, the expert witness for the state said the image violated the Illinois Statue on child porn, your own lawyer stipulated to it and didn't challenge it, and the judge said it did.

10/13/2022SA; PDS W/ D IN CUST OF CCJ; ISP INVEST DORWART SWORN AND TESTIFIES; CT FINDS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE FELONY; D WAIVES FORMAL ARRAIGNMENT; PNG; JURY DEMAND; ON D'S MOTION PT ONLY 11/22/22 AT 11AM.

And the 2015 wasn't dismisssed, your own lawyer told you that, or are you forgetting the lies you tell again???



It's not up to me to take it up with her, it's up to you.



But you didn't, did you chicken shit????


There's no reprimand on file. Show us this in writing. Since you're a known liar, your word isn't good enough.

So again, despite all your rambling, are you going to show us all the discovery so we can give an honest opnion or not since you keep asking us???

I can't help it if you were too stupid to hire a lawyer back in 2018.......
Click to expand...
No DUMBASS that wasn't the state expert, that was arresting officer. Dorwart (who is a state cop) was the one who arrested me. No, they didn't. The reason it was dismissed was because it wasn't a threat, and YOU claim. I believe it was mentioned in court that we would file an appeal. Judici is a commercial website and doesn't have everything that went on in court. YOUR NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY. YOU'RE not part of the case.

Dirty Harry said:
Found where Toad admitted the charges in 2015 were not dismissed followed by a threat to Judge Spears. Of course he claims to have seen Judge Spears recently "in his sights" but of course he was too afraid to confront him.


So Todd, you're caught in another lie.....
Click to expand...
It was dismissed...someone changed it...don't know who it was. if it was state or the police, but the official file was changed. again, Judge Spear will prove it. I talk to Spears a lot; he eats at the same restaurant my family and I not to mention he goes to my parents' church. I don't know what you are trying to apply with "in his sights" bullshit.
 
N9OGL said:
prove me wrong...

1. The warrant was a general warrant.

2. the warrant was quashed in April of 2018

3. The image in question was NOT under Illinois law child porn.

like I said on my website to people, either put up or shut up.
Click to expand...
Told you in the past dumb fuck, look up plain view doctrine. It works for searching through PC's too.
By the way, Frew W. Barger is in Pontiac Correctional Center for ten years for CHILD PORN/POSS/MOVING. 1 count, class 2. The guy has a decent criminal history over the past two decades.
I understand you're retarded and need a safety helmet on anytime you go outside but it's not that hard to look shit up.
By the way, the police found those images on Drews phone after he handed it over to the authorities over a drug bust. Sound familiar to you?
Have fun in slammer for a decade pedo.
 
Last edited:
Anonymus Fluhre said:
Told you in the past dumb fuck, look up plain view doctrine. It works for searching through PC's too.
Click to expand...
The "plain view" doctrine only applied when the 1. warrant is valid 2. the material is found in plain sight. That is not the case in this. The warrant states

"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 court ruled those terms like "any and all information and data" and terms like "not limited to" makes the warrant a blanket warrant, thus a general warrant. Under the Fourth Amendment a search warrant must state what's to search and what it's supposed to seize. it also supposed to list to particular. The reason is, to stop general warrant. this warrant was a general warrant. The plain view doctrine doesn't apply when it comes to general warrants.
 
Spear is also the judge that found him guilty in 2010 for threatening to blow up a building then found him guilty of violating this probation by sneaking back on the internet. Some pal you have there in Judge Spears. (RDS is Judge Spears).

06/05/2012 Payment of ($50.00) posted on 06/05/2012 -- new balance is $0.00.
Bond of $50.00 posted on 06/05/2012.
Bond of $50.00 applied on 06/05/2012.
Account paid in full.		UNASSIGNED
06/04/2012 NEGOTIATED PLEA. ADMITS PTR. NON-ELECTRONIC HOME CONFINEMENT ORDERED. PROBATION TERMINATED UNSUCCESSFULLY.RDS
05/24/2012 Subpoena issued by the Clerk and returned to the State for service.UNASSIGNED
04/24/2012 HEARING SET ON PTR - JUNE 4 @ 1:15 P.M.RDS
03/23/2012 DEFT W/PD, SA. DEFT WAIVES ARRAIGNMENT, DENIES PTR. PT 4/24/12
@10:00.		BP
02/28/2012 Entry of Appearance filed by Public Defender.UNASSIGNED
02/27/2012 DEFT, SA. PD APPOINTED SUBJECT TO REIMBURSEMENT. CCPD ADVISES DEFT BECAME PHYSICALLY VIOLENT AND HAD TO BE RESTRAINED. DEFT ADMONISHED. PD APPOINTED 3/23/12 @ 10 A.M.BP
02/27/2012 Notification of Appointment to Public Defender.BP
02/27/2012 Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the Public Defender.UNASSIGNED
01/30/2012 DEFT PRO SE. WAIVES ATTY. 1ST APP 2/27 @10:00.RDS
12/27/2011 All entries prior to this date in Court file.UNASSIGNED
12/27/2011 Petition to Revoke Order of Probation filed by the State.UNASSIGNED
12/27/2011 Notice issued for Defendant's appearance 1/30/12 at 10:00 a.m.UNASSIGNED
02/05/2010 **Complaint filed on 2/05/2010

20 - First appearance 02/05/2010 1:15 P.M. SPEARS A
20 - First appearance 03/08/2010 10:00 A.M. SPEARS A
20 - First appearance 04/06/2010 10:00 A.M. SPEARS A
13 - Pre-trial 05/11/2010 10:00 A.M. SPEARS A
13 - Pre-trial 06/14/2010 10:00 A.M. SPEARS A
16 - Sentencing hearing 08/09/2010 1:15 P.M. SPEARS A
19 - Petition/revoke 01/30/2012 10:00 A.M. PAISLEY B
20 - First appearance 02/27/2012 10:00 A.M. PAISLEY B
19 - Petition/revoke 03/23/2012 10:00 A.M. PAISLEY B
13 - Pre-trial 04/24/2012 10:00 A.M. SPEARS A
23 - Petition hearing 06/04/2012 1:15 P.M. SPEARS A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom