N9OGL OLD FORUM

I think the state needs to understand I AM GOING TO SUE THEM, and I AM GOING USE ALL OF THIS AGAINST THEM!

In 2018 the Taylorville police wrote a search warrant (see below) to seize all the devices in my house. That search warrant was a general warrant, because they did not link the computers (yes there was more then one, there was 15) to the crime nor did they particulatize what they were seizing within the computer. The federal courts including the US Supreme has stated that the police can not seize everything on the computer, and the warrant must show the crime and must show what file they are to seize associated to that crime which they have probable cause for. This warrant does not. it allowed the seizure of everything on the computers, including files that they did not have probable cause for.

Do I have the right to be mad? YEAH, because this shit shouldn't be happening Not only was the warrant quashed as I stated, but the warrant was also a general warrant. general warrant are illegal and it has been since the founding of the U.S. it is also well established by the US Supreme Court since 1927 that general warrants are illegal. BTW Illinois law 720 ILCS 5/16D-2 was repealed back in 2013, by the state legislators From google : 720 ILCS 5/16D-2, which defined "computer program" and "data" within the Illinois Criminal Code's Article 16D on Computer Crime, was repealed by Public Act 96-1551, effective July 1, 2011. Illinois Statues of 2012 refimed the repeal and the law was official repealed 2013

A threat was made on March 16, 2018 on a website that doesn't require a login and people pretending to be people is the status quo.

The next day March 17th the police arrested me without an investigation and with corroborating the tip. I was in jail for a month on a 250,000-dollar bond

On March 18th two individuals got a hold of the police, FBI and State Attorney to notify them that more post were being made in my name while I was still in jail.

On March 19th The police got a warrant to my Internet service provider to get my mac address and my IP

On March 21, 2018, The police got a search warrant to seize all the computers in my house.

On March 30th The police sent a warrant to Hate and Flame the website the threat was posted on, which confirmed that I didn’t make the post, in fact I wasn’t on that site at all.

April 4th the police hand the computers over to the FBI and they are put in storage

April 16th the charges were dropped, and the search warrant was quashed. That same day Agent O’Sullivan got the devices out of storage to catalog them

April 23rd, 2018, he begins going through them on the invalid state warrant and found a computer-generated image and stopped the search to get a second warrant.

March 2, 2020, The FBI got their second warrant claiming they were in legal possession under a state search warrant

September 14 2022 I was arrested again by the state of Illinois for child pornography, which we would later learn was a computer-generated image. The state charged me for one count for one image. The image they found under the 2018 general warrant that was later quashed by the court.

September 22, 2022 A motion for discovery was filed and was released to me go through. It was there that I noticed the warrant was a general warrant. I had not seen the warrant prior to September 22, 2021 a copy was never given to me or my family.

October 13 2022 Officer Dorwart of the Illinois state police testified for probable cause. The issues of the case were never brought up and NOR was there time to discuss the issues. instead the police and state was given a find of probable cause with out any issues or a look through the complete case allowed.

November 22, 2022 A motion to disseminate was granted. Discovery and was released to me go through. It was there that I noticed the warrant was a general warrant. I had not seen the warrant prior to September 22, 2021 a copy was never given to me or my family. I also noticed that there was a lot of missing files in discovery. One was the motion to Dismiss in 2018 (which I had a copy of) as well as other important documents.

October 21st, 2023 State claims all files had been given to defense, One year later (2024) after that claim all the missing were given to defense, clearly a Brady violation. The court also reject modification of release, with defense not saying a word about the issues.

January 7th 2025 State needs more time and is given 30 days to respond, they never do

April 8th 2025 States objects over Motion to Suppress, but still hasn’t file a response. Franks hearing for Motion to Suppress to be on June 19th

June 12th 2025 Public defender files motion to withdraw. a week before the motion to suppress. Due to comments her client made a few years ago Because I was pissed off at the amount of time it was taking for a hearing.

06/13/2025 Agreed Motion to Vacate and Continue filed by Public Defender Senger.

06/13/2025 Notice of Hearing for June 24, 2025 at 8:45 a.m. filed by Public Defender Senger.

What does AI have to say about this case?? I asked three AI and they came up with the same thing:

This is a complex case with several significant legal issues. Here's a breakdown of my thoughts on the events you've described:

Initial Arrest and Investigation (March-April 2018):

Lack of Investigation/Corroboration: The immediate arrest on March 17th "without an investigation and with corroborating the tip" is a major red flag. Police are generally required to have probable cause before making an arrest. If the only basis was an anonymous website threat where "people pretending to be people is the status quo," that probable cause would be very weak, especially without any attempt to verify the source or the content of the threat.
Continued Posts While in Jail: The fact that more posts were made in your name while you were incarcerated, and this was brought to the attention of law enforcement on March 18th, is critical. This strongly suggests that you were not the author of the original threat and should have immediately prompted the police to reconsider their probable cause for your arrest and continued detention.
Delayed Warrants: The sequence of warrants (ISP on March 19th, house search on March 21st, and website on March 30th) shows a reactive rather than proactive investigation. Crucially, the website's confirmation on March 30th that you "didn't make the post, in fact [you] wasn't on that site at all" definitively eliminated probable cause for the initial threat-related charges.
Lack of Probable Cause Known by Police/State: Your statement that "By this time, the police and state knew they no longer had probable cause" is a critical assertion. If true, their continued holding of your devices after this point becomes highly problematic.
Quashed Search Warrant and Charges Dropped (April 16th, 2018): This is a key victory for you regarding the initial charges. It confirms that the legal basis for the search and arrest related to the threat was invalid.

The Seizure and Subsequent Search of Computers (April 2018 - Present):

Agent O'Sullivan's Actions on April 16th, 2018: This is a highly contentious point. If the search warrant was quashed on April 16th, any further interaction with your devices on that same day by Agent O'Sullivan to "catalog them" could be legally questionable if it went beyond mere inventory and constituted a search for evidence.
Search on an "Invalid State Warrant" (April 23rd, 2018): This is the central issue of your current child pornography charge. If Agent O'Sullivan began going through your devices after the warrant was quashed, and explicitly stated he was doing so "on the invalid state warrant," then any evidence found during that initial search is likely subject to suppression under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. He recognized this by stopping and seeking a second warrant, but the damage may have already been done.
Second Warrant (March 2, 2020) Claiming Legal Possession Under State Warrant: The FBI's claim that they were in "legal possession under a state search warrant" for their second warrant is directly contradicted by the fact that the initial state warrant was quashed in 2018. This suggests a potentially misleading statement to obtain the second warrant, or a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal status of the seized items.
"Computer-Generated Image" and Child Pornography Charge (September 14, 2022): The fact that the image is "computer-generated" can be a complex issue in child pornography cases, as the legal definition often requires a "real" child. However, some jurisdictions have laws that cover virtual or computer-generated images if they depict certain conduct or meet specific criteria. The central legal battle here will be the legality of how that image was found.
General Warrant and Lack of Warrant Copy: Your repeated statements that the warrant was a "general warrant" and that you hadn't seen a copy until much later are significant. General warrants, which allow for broad searches without specific limitations, are generally unconstitutional. The failure to provide you with a copy of the warrant is also a procedural violation.
Missing Files in Discovery (Brady Violation): The claim of "a lot of missing files in discovery," especially the motion to dismiss from 2018, and the state's eventual production of these files a year after claiming all files had been given, is a strong indication of a Brady violation. The prosecution has a constitutional obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense.
October 13, 2022 Probable Cause Hearing: The fact that the "issues of the case were never brought up" and there was no time to discuss them during this hearing is concerning. A probable cause hearing is meant to determine if there's sufficient evidence to proceed; limiting discussion of key issues is problematic.
Motion to Suppress (September 10th, 2024): This is the correct legal strategy given the facts you've presented. The motion to suppress will argue that the evidence (the computer-generated image) was obtained in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights due to the unlawful search.
State's Delays and Objections to Motion to Suppress: The state repeatedly asking for more time and then objecting without filing a response to your motion to suppress suggests they are struggling to defend the legality of the search.
Public Defender's Withdrawal (June 12th, 2025): This is a highly unfortunate development right before a critical hearing. While client comments can lead to withdrawal, doing so a week before a Franks hearing, especially in a case with such serious constitutional questions, is detrimental to your defense. It creates a significant delay and leaves you without counsel at a crucial moment.

Overall Legal Position:

Based on your account, you appear to have very strong arguments for:

Suppression of Evidence: The search that discovered the image on April 23rd, 2018, seems highly problematic given the prior quashing of the warrant on April 16th. This is the cornerstone of your defense.
Brady Violations: The delayed disclosure of crucial discovery materials, especially the 2018 motion to dismiss, strongly suggests a violation of your due process rights.
Lack of Probable Cause (Initial Arrest): While those charges were dropped, the initial unlawful arrest and detention set the stage for the later seizure of your devices.
Fourth Amendment Violations: The entire chain of events related to the seizure and search of your computers, from the quashed warrant to the general nature of the warrant, screams Fourth Amendment violations.

Next Steps and Considerations:

New Counsel: Your immediate priority is to secure new legal representation, preferably an attorney with extensive experience in Fourth Amendment issues, electronic evidence, and complex criminal defense cases.
Franks Hearing: The upcoming Franks hearing on June 19th is critical. This hearing is where you can challenge the veracity of the information used to obtain a search warrant. Your arguments about the invalid state warrant and the FBI's claims in their second warrant will be central here.
Document Everything: Continue to keep meticulous records of all communications, court dates, and documents.
Patience (unfortunately): Cases with this many legal complexities can take a very long time to resolve.

This is a battle over constitutional rights, and it sounds like you have compelling facts to support your claims. However, it will be a difficult fight requiring skilled legal counsel.

My Lawyer asked to withdrawn

My Response to the Judge:

Your honor, I find it highly concerning that my attorney is withdrawing at this exact moment. The alleged conflict is based on a statement I made years ago, yet it is only being raised now—just a week before a hearing to challenge a general warrant. This is especially troubling given that the state has failed to respond to my motion to suppress since September of last year. With this sudden withdrawal, I am left without representation, jeopardizing my ability to properly argue my case and raising due process concerns. The timing is highly suspect, and I ask the court to consider whether this abrupt withdrawal places my right to a fair trial at risk.

Your honor, I respectfully ask that my attorney’s request to withdraw NOT be granted at this time. Given that this withdrawal comes just days before a crucial Franks hearing, it would unfairly leave me without representation and jeopardize my ability to defend myself. The alleged conflict stems from a statement I made years ago, yet it is only being raised now—coinciding with the state’s ongoing failure to respond to my motion to suppress since September 2024. I ask that the Court, in the interest of Justice, encourage my attorney to fully and fearlessly advocate on my behalf, as is her duty, rather than allow these proceedings to continue in a manner that denies me a fair trial. Because Justice delayed is Justice denied.

I am extremely concerned about your motion to withdraw just a week before my Franks hearing—especially given the timing of this decision in relation to my pending motion to suppress. This case has been ongoing for last four to five years, and your withdrawal at this late stage jeopardizes my ability to present my case fairly.

I respectfully ask that your request to withdraw not be granted, and that you instead fulfill your duty to fully and fearlessly advocate for me during this hearing. The alleged conflict is based on a statement made years ago, yet it is only being raised now—at a time when the state has failed to respond to my suppression motion for nearly a year. The timing of this decision raises serious concerns and could potentially impact my right to due process.

I ask that you reconsider this withdrawal and uphold your professional obligation to defend me. Justice delayed is justice denied, and abandoning this case now would only further contribute to that injustice.

Sincerely, Todd E. Daugherty

I want to make it clear that I intend to use this against the state in my lawsuit. Their actions suggest an intentional effort to reset the legal process, prolonging this case for another four to five years, creating a cycle where my attorney inevitably becomes frustrated and the process starts over—effectively ensuring this case remains indefinitely unresolved.

Furthermore, a third party involved in this case is actively inserting themselves and interfering with legal proceedings, which constitutes obstruction of justice. This interference will be directly cited in my lawsuit.

It is also important to note that the individual attempting to influence this case is the same person who filed the tip with the FBI in 2018 and was likely the originator of the initial threat. I have screenshots that strongly suggest this individual wants me incarcerated, and their continued interference aligns with that objective.

It doesn't take 4 to 5 years to a frank hearing for a general warrant, in fact the federal court would see this unreasonable and throw it out. I am going to sue the City, The State and the FBI and I am going to use EVERYTHING to my advantage.

A Franks hearing is a proceeding where a defendant can challenge the validity of a search warrant based on the allegation that the information used to obtain the warrant was false or misleading. The purpose is to determine if law enforcement officers knowingly or recklessly provided false information in the affidavit supporting the warrant.

While the specific timeline can vary depending on the complexity of the case, court dockets, and other factors, a 4-year wait is generally not considered typical or expected.

While court delays can happen, a 4-year wait for a Franks hearing is not typical and the specific timeline depends on the case and court schedule.

Not only was the warrant a general warrant, based on information that was false and misleading, the warrant did not particularize what they were looking for within the digitial devices. This on top of the fact that the warrant was quashed and the police in late March of 2018 lost probable cause. The FBI illegally searched the devices without a warrant on top of the other violations.

“where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request.” Frank v Delware

My Secret Website - A site I started right after I got out of jail in 2018 that contains all sorts of screenshots including screenshots from an individuals posting on twitter before the threat was made. Stuff the police, state and FBI apparently don't give a shit about. Screenshots of a video that was mysteriously removed from Youtube created by two individuals who opened admitted they made the threat to put me in jail. Threats against me and my home, A screenshot from the owner from the Hate and Flame admitting he knows who these people are and they were doing the same stuff to him. Post made by the FBI and Taylorville police. Screenshot of the FCC putting my license on hold from the 2018 threat (I told my lawyer it was for the 2015 thing, but was 2018) Threats of using a gun to kill me in the alleyway, and the list goes on and on. BUT like I said the State of Illinois, Police or FBI doesn't give a shit.

Todd Daugherty's Personal Blog