🐮 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
AnOminous said:
Nobody read that you faggot. All anyone heard was "I FUCK KIDS AND I'M GOING TO PRISON." We all agreed with that.
Click to expand...
I've often wondered if Todd hasn't crossed the line at some point and done this very thing (raped a child and gotten away with it). Certainly he posted his fantasies about raping kids on his "blog" many times. If he hasn't already done it then certainly he was working himself up to rape a kid. Probably his parents were the only thing that kept him from committing these crimes and I am not really sure how much longer they will be alive. So Todd going to prison is win/win, he was a ticking time bomb as his crimes got worse and worse as he got older. Very likely he will die in prison but if he doesn't he will have to register as a sex offender and be monitored for the rest of his life.
 
Not a bee said:
I studied criminal law, and the shit you are spewing out on your keyboard of only "one image" "warrant doesn't have permission to view images" are the absolute dumbest defenses I have ever read. One image, a dozen, fictional or real, it does not matter. It is illegal, bottom line. Warrants, include looking for imagery, and searching your entire computer to look for that particular image, since that is what the police are after. It can be a PDF file, a jpg, a link, if it is found in YOUR possession, you WILL get punished for it.
Oh, I am sorry, you are rather slow so let me word this post as simple as I can so you can have a better understanding:
If I were you, I would heavily consider suicide as an option. You are not going to see freedom, especially with the word vomit you call an excuse. Good luck Todd
Click to expand...
apparently, you weren't very good at it. There is no case to my knowledge of someone being charged for one image. if there is show me, and I will admit I was wrong. 18 USC 2252(c) is the affirmative defense in the federal child pornography law. it states it is an affirmative defense if you have three items or less. Illinois law states the affirmative defense is the person has to have some kind of knowledge of the material.
In the US fictional images are legal and constitutionally protected speech unless they are deemed obscene (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition) Indvidual's have the right to look at obscene material in the privacy of their homes (Stanley v Georgia) (FYI I belong to some groups that filed Amicus briefs supporting the Free Speech Coalition in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition before the US Supreme Court)

The warrant was to search for three items regarding a threat to a school, not child pornography. The main three things they were looking for was a TOR program, the computer access logs, and browser history regarding threats to school or public officials. No where in the warrant does it state to look for images. Not to mention, as stated before the warrant was quashed by the judge two months before they found the image, so they search the computers without a warrant, which violates the 4th amendment.

my suggestion to you is either get your money back from that school, or go to a different school because apparently, they taught you wrong.
 
PedoToad is very nervous before his next hearing tomorrow, nice how he is just flooding kiwifarms on purpose with the same nonsense endlessly. But unlike Toad, Kiwifarms is very tolerant in allowing PedoToad to do this.

@Not a bee - N9OGL brags about having 1,000s of virtual porn pictures and while they may or may not be legal, it certainly will be used against him trial to show his pattern of intent, so the "I accidentally downloaded it" excuse won't work, not that his lawyer would ever allow him to say that. Think of like being charged with bomb threats, downloading how to build a bomb is not illegal, but if you threaten to use a bomb, they will use that information as intent.

He's really nervous today
 
Not a bee said:
@N9OGL

Read the whole thing, including the "other visual representation" part.
Edit; This is the Illnois laws I linked to you regarding CP for clarification
Click to expand...
Illinois Supreme court deemed that portion unconstitutional; it was supposed to been severed from rest the law, but never was. The Illinois Supreme court stated that child porn in Illinois must be images of REAL children. In fact, the definition of child porn in that law (720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(f)(7) was also deemed unconstitutional and was also supposed to have been removed from the rest of the law but has yet to be removed. (People of the State of Illinois v Kenneth Alexander 2003)
 
N9OGL said:
Illinois Supreme court deemed that portion unconstitutional; it was supposed to been severed from rest the law, but never was. The Illinois Supreme court stated that child porn in Illinois must be images of REAL children. In fact, the definition of child porn in that law (720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(f)(7) was also deemed unconstitutional and was also supposed to have been removed from the rest of the law but has yet to be removed. (People of the State of Illinois v Kenneth Alexander 2003)
Click to expand...
Source?
 
N9OGL said:
apparently, you weren't very good at it. There is no case to my knowledge of someone being charged for one image. if there is show me, and I will admit I was wrong. 18 USC 2252(c) is the affirmative defense in the federal child pornography law. it states it is an affirmative defense if you have three items or less. Illinois law states the affirmative defense is the person has to have some kind of knowledge of the material.
Click to expand...
You're on trial for state charges you fucking idiot. And affirmative defense means YOU have to prove it. It's an admission of the actual facts charged. Good job admitting to the crime in public, too, real genius move. Also if you're so totally innocent and have no idea how the child porn got on your computer, despite having tons of disgusting cartoon pedo shit, then why you are defending CP instead of just saying you were framed?

You have to be the most piss-poor stupid-ass hick liar who ever lived.
 
N9OGL said:
In the US fictional images are legal and constitutionally protected speech unless they are deemed obscene
Click to expand...
Lol. Keep excusing your pedophilia. between this and your gross red riding hood story, the opinion doesn't change, you are a pedophile. Now when can we get some classic NGO9L radio rants going? It's been too long.
 
Dirty Harry said:
You don't google well, do you retard?
Click to expand...
One count is just one device being searched and found to have stuff on it. When you get multiple counts it means multiple devices were searched and found to have stuff on them.
N9OGL said:
my suggestion to you is either get your money back from that school, or go to a different school because apparently, they taught you wrong.
Click to expand...
This coming from the retard who had to spend their school years in special education classes because they were found to be too autistic to be with the other normal students
 
Last edited:
Dirty Harry said:
PedoToad is very nervous before his next hearing tomorrow, nice how he is just flooding kiwifarms on purpose with the same nonsense endlessly. But unlike Toad, Kiwifarms is very tolerant in allowing PedoToad to do this.

@Not a bee - N9OGL brags about having 1,000s of virtual porn pictures and while they may or may not be legal, it certainly will be used against him trial to show his pattern of intent, so the "I accidentally downloaded it" excuse won't work, not that his lawyer would ever allow him to say that. Think of like being charged with bomb threats, downloading how to build a bomb is not illegal, but if you threaten to use a bomb, they will use that information as intent.

He's really nervous today
Click to expand...
This is how you know he is truly window licking retarded. "I accidently downloaded one image!" sounds suspiciously like "I accidently forgot to cover up my child porn one time!" when viewed alongside a vast collection of drawn/cg/whatever cp. Any normal person can see this, but a pedophilic autist sees this hypothetical technicality as vindication and hangs onto it like a pitbull on a baby. That being said, the vast majority of criminal cases end in plea deals. Toad is going to be told to shut up by his lawyer and take whatever is offered. Hopefully he has some autistic outburst and refuses and this goes to trial. Failing that, I hope the deal includes some sort of registration/computer monitoring or limited use.
 
AnOminous said:
You're on trial for state charges you fucking idiot. And affirmative defense means YOU have to prove it. It's an admission of the actual facts charged. Good job admitting to the crime in public, too, real genius move. Also if you're so totally innocent and have no idea how the child porn got on your computer, despite having tons of disgusting cartoon pedo shit, then why you are defending CP instead of just saying you were framed?

You have to be the most piss-poor stupid-ass hick liar who ever lived.
Click to expand...
I was informing person of the affirmative defense for both the federal and state law. Yes, I have to prove it, which get back to why, if need be, a forensic expert is on standby if we need him. The state is required to prove that the image is lewd since the person isn't engaged in a sexual act, that the only other option the state has. it is on the state using the DOST test to prove the image is lewd, which according to what was said in court, it isn't. I have not admitted to any crime, quite the opposite, I am defended myself. Cartoon images are legal (BTW I haven't looked at that shit in quite a while; years to be exact) But cartoon images are legal and there is no link between cartoon images and real abuse of children.
 
N9OGL said:
I was informing person of the affirmative defense for both the federal and state law. Yes, I have to prove it, which get back to why, if need be, a forensic expert is on standby if we need him. The state is required to prove that the image is lewd since the person isn't engaged in a sexual act, that the only other option the state has. it is on the state using the DOST test to prove the image is lewd, which according to what was said in court, it isn't. I have not admitted to any crime, quite the opposite, I am defended myself. Cartoon images are legal (BTW I haven't looked at that shit in quite a while; years to be exact) But cartoon images are legal and there is no link between cartoon images and real abuse of children.
Click to expand...
Nobody cares if cartoon images are legal. Looking at them still makes you a disgusting pedophile and you need burying, preferably alive
 
Confirmed pedophile Todd Daugherty said:
I haven't looked at that shit in quite a while; years to be exact
Click to expand...

Yea sure..........
td child porn.png
 
Last edited:
break these cuffs said:
Any normal person can see this, but a pedophilic autist sees this hypothetical technicality as vindication and hangs onto it like a pitbull on a baby.
Click to expand...
Pedos are too stupid to understand that the "reasonable doubt" thing includes "reasonable." If you have a mountain of quasi-legal pedo porn that technically isn't "child porn" and then some unquestionable child porn of a prepubescent child, your claim you were just holding it for a friend or had no idea you had it or it just magically appeared on your machine doesn't carry any water. All reasonableness just went out the window.

But you have mental retards like this dude who will keep digging himself a deeper and deeper hole without any concept that he may end up having to defend the very things he's saying right now in court. He's unaware the cops can read this site or that if they just Google his callsign this very thread will show up where he is repeatedly incriminating himself with his pathetic denials, like a fly thrashing around on flypaper.
N9OGL said:
The state is required to prove that the image is lewd since the person isn't engaged in a sexual act, that the only other option the state has. it is on the state using the DOST test to prove the image is lewd, which according to what was said in court, it isn't.
Click to expand...
It's pretty impressive how despite not knowing shit from shinola in any other respect, you seem intimately familiar with child porn law.

I wonder why.
break these cuffs said:
Toad is going to be told to shut up by his lawyer and take whatever is offered.
Click to expand...
His lawyer is obviously super lazy and has not told this fucking retard to STFU and tard-slapped him into silence, because he's repeatedly admitted guilt just in this thread. He should be glad about our no-contact rule because otherwise my own personal no-tipping rule would be facing extreme temptation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom