Cumbot
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2024
You can lie, you can cry but you're still going to prison. You're going to be another man's bitch. Resistance is futile, retarded manlet.
🐮 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
- Dec 28, 2014
Even if that happened, you'd still be a profoundly retarded pedophile.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
For someone who doesn't give a shit about our opinion, you sure are on here a long time. asking about it, and checking on this thread every 5 to 10 minutes.
You are branded a pedophile, retarded, and a lolcow for the rest of your life, and we own you
THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT I!!!!!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Like I care whether you care. I'll still laugh at the rest of your miserable, pathetic life of crime and perversion.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
If that's the case your PD would be trying to get this case over with. However, they're not doing that.
Yet you keep coming here crying. Just do us all a favour and kill yourself pedophile.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Yet you monitor this thread closely and constantly reply. As for feeling “butt hurt”? Let us know how it feels after you get sentenced to big boy jail. You’re going to become currency.
Cumbot
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2024
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
AGAIN PROVE ME WRONG...
1. the files they were supposed to look for was 1. A TOR Program, 2. computer access logs, 3. browser history
No where did it state in the affidavit or search warrant, that they were supposed to look for images. So, show me in the warrant or affidavit, that it states they could search for images?
plain doesn't really apply for computers, because 1. the program they forensic lab uses called Ecase limited what they can look at by categorizing all the files into separate folders. In fact, there a few good videos on YouTube on how Ecase works.
2. 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. AND "The Supreme Court has instructed, “the plain view doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.” Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 466, 91 S.Ct. 2022. The warrant obtained for the specific purpose of searching defendant's computers permitted only the search of the computer files for “names, telephone numbers, ledgers, receipts, addresses, and other documentary evidence pertaining to the sale and distribution of controlled substances.” The scope of the search was thus circumscribed to evidence pertaining to drug trafficking. The government's argument the files were in plain view is unavailing because it is the contents of the files and not the files themselves which were seized. Although the question of what constitutes “plain view” in the context of computer files is intriguing and appears to be an issue of first impression for this court, and many others, we do not need to reach it here. Judging this case only by its own facts, we conclude the items seized were not authorized by the warrant. Further, they were in closed files and thus not in plain view." (United States v Carey 1999)
Next, the warrant was quashed as I stated numerous times before, so 1. they had no rights to computer 2. they had no right to search it without a warrant, which they DID. AGAIN, if they want to search the computer or cellphone, they are required to get a warrant (Riley v California 2014 US Supreme Court) THEY HAD NO WARRANT to search my computer.
again, prove me wrong
1. the files they were supposed to look for was 1. A TOR Program, 2. computer access logs, 3. browser history
No where did it state in the affidavit or search warrant, that they were supposed to look for images. So, show me in the warrant or affidavit, that it states they could search for images?
plain doesn't really apply for computers, because 1. the program they forensic lab uses called Ecase limited what they can look at by categorizing all the files into separate folders. In fact, there a few good videos on YouTube on how Ecase works.
2. 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. AND "The Supreme Court has instructed, “the plain view doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.” Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 466, 91 S.Ct. 2022. The warrant obtained for the specific purpose of searching defendant's computers permitted only the search of the computer files for “names, telephone numbers, ledgers, receipts, addresses, and other documentary evidence pertaining to the sale and distribution of controlled substances.” The scope of the search was thus circumscribed to evidence pertaining to drug trafficking. The government's argument the files were in plain view is unavailing because it is the contents of the files and not the files themselves which were seized. Although the question of what constitutes “plain view” in the context of computer files is intriguing and appears to be an issue of first impression for this court, and many others, we do not need to reach it here. Judging this case only by its own facts, we conclude the items seized were not authorized by the warrant. Further, they were in closed files and thus not in plain view." (United States v Carey 1999)
Next, the warrant was quashed as I stated numerous times before, so 1. they had no rights to computer 2. they had no right to search it without a warrant, which they DID. AGAIN, if they want to search the computer or cellphone, they are required to get a warrant (Riley v California 2014 US Supreme Court) THEY HAD NO WARRANT to search my computer.
again, prove me wrong
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
And here you are again begging us to give an opinion for shit you've flooded one hundred times here before.
Again, this is Kiwifarms. you're guilty until proven innocent here and you've already been judged.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
No you just had kid porn on your computer. We all get that. Enjoy prison.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
We have proven you wrong time and time again. You just don't want to admit it. Please hurry and KYS
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
FOR ONE IMAGE...SOMETHING THE FUCKING FEDS WON'T EVEN GO AFTER!!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
So you admit that image was child porn?
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
You are a total fucking retard. Smart people know when to shut their mouths. Then there’s you. Moron.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
I hope when they drag him off he'll yell "It was just one photo!"
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
He has a winning strategy. “It wasn’t child porn, but if it was, I didn’t know about it. If I did know about it, it was only one picture. If it was a picture, it wasn’t real…”
If he had an IQ higher than room temperature, he’d shut that dick receptacle he calls his mouth and get a lawyer. Fortunately he’s our new pet moron, so he’ll be the gift that keeps on giving.