Todd Daugherty's Official Board › General › Main Board › Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct
Post Reply

Post a New Reply
Reply to thread: Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct
Username:
Post Subject:
Post Icon:
Your Message:
Smilies
Smile Wink Cool Big Grin
Tongue Rolleyes Shy Sad
At Angel Angry Blush
Confused Dodgy Exclamation Heart
Huh Idea Sleepy Undecided
[get more]
Post Options:
Thread Subscription:
Specify the type of notification and thread subscription you'd like to have to this thread. (Registered users only)




Attachments
Your allocated attachment usage quota is Unlimited.
New Attachment:


Thread Review (Newest First)
Posted by N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-11-2025, 05:02 PM
NO TOAD
Posted by admin - 07-11-2025, 04:11 PM
things are done a little differently here pal.
Posted by N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-11-2025, 03:36 PM
All this AI stuff isn't making you look smarter, it's making you look more retarded.

I know you are learning disabled and such, but you'll never see me using AI because I understand English properly and can express things in my own words.

You had to use AI to answer this simple question

Who at 57 still relies on their father to help them with problems in life? Shouldn't you be a big boy now and take care of that shit yourself. Of course, your father is your legal guardian as proven on the June 24th hearing. Again, 3rd parties can't ask judges questions, only a legal guardian, the defendant themselves or a lawyer can.
Retard Wrote:Asking a question in a public hearing does not confer legal authorit

Again retard. The only people who can ask the judge a question are the defendant themselves, lawyers or LEGAL GUARDIANS.

If your Daddy isn't your legal guardian, he is considered a third party and thus can't ask questions. Just like how I can't show up and ask the judges.
Therefore your father must be your legal guardian.
Posted by admin - 07-11-2025, 04:29 AM

  1. My father is not my legal guardian, and there is no court ruling stating otherwise. Asking a question in a public hearing does not confer legal authority. Legal guardianship is a formal designation involving court orders, paperwork, and oversight. You stating it doesn’t make it so.
  2. I absolutely do have the right to use AI to assist me—and unlike you, AI isn’t driven by bias, anger, or a personal grudge. It provides clarity, factual precision, and structure—everything your message lacks. Disregarding untrue or manipulative claims isn’t cherry-picking—it’s self-respect.
  3. A mental competency hearing, if ever proposed, would be determined by objective evidence, not online trolling. You are not a judge, DA, or evaluator—and this isn’t a psychiatric witch hunt. You threatening confinement like it’s a punchline only reveals your obsession with power, not justice.
  4. The loss of a public defender can happen for any number of procedural or strategic reasons. It doesn’t mean I’m incapable—it means I’m choosing my path. Tiffany’s opinion isn’t law. Neither is yours. Competence is defined by legal standards—not vendettas disguised as commentary.
  5. Millions of people—57 or 17—consult family during times of stress. That’s called being human. It doesn’t make them weak. It makes them supported. The fact that you mock someone for seeking support says far more about your worldview than mine.
  6. If you’re “not here to support justice,” then you’ve already disqualified yourself from any serious legal dialogue. You’ve “found me guilty”? You're not the judge, the jury, or the Constitution. You're just angry I won't let you control the narrative.

I’m not here to be intimidated. I'm here to reclaim what’s mine and design a life free from people who think harassment equals accountability. If you have anything meaningful to contribute, bring legal precedent—not personal attacks.
Posted by admin - 07-11-2025, 04:19 AM
I didn't delete shit pal
Posted by N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-11-2025, 03:44 AM
You deleted my response and I didn't even violate your Terms of Service.

1. Your father is your legal guardian as proven by the court. He better get busy.

2. A judge can determine if you need a mental competency hearing and you need to stop using AI to answer your question for you, while disregarding the answers you don't like or want to hear.

3. The DA would gladly suspend the case in order for you to get a fair mental competency hearing. In fact, that's the procedure for such a hearing.

4. You obviously have proven you can't defend yourself as Tiffany and the judge both agreed when you lost your public defender. This probably is your chance before going for a competency hearing or violation of the terms of your agreed to bail agreement.

5. Who at 57 still relies on their father to help them with problems in life? Shouldn't you be a big boy now and take care of that shit yourself. Of course, your father is your legal guardian as proven on the June 24th hearing. Again, 3rd parties can't ask judges questions, only a legal guardian, the defendant themselves or a lawyer can.

6. Again, your using AI for your responses. I'm not here to support justice. I'm here to fuck you over. I've already found you guilty. If you think the US justice system is fair, then you are really fucked up.
Posted by admin - 07-10-2025, 11:44 PM
My ability to seek legal representation is entirely mine to manage. Suggesting that my father needs to "get busy" or that I'm incapable of doing so on my own is not only patronizing—it’s irrelevant to the legal realities of my case.

As for mental competency: that determination requires evidence, not conjecture. Judges follow a strict standard before ordering psychological evaluation. They don't base those decisions on internet opinions or assumptions. Unless you're a licensed attorney or mental health expert involved in the proceedings, you're in no position to predict what a judge might do—and frankly, it's irresponsible to weaponize mental health as leverage.

The idea that the DA would "gladly suspend the case" ignores due process. If charges are dismissed, the State must follow the law—not personal vendettas or procedural loopholes.

If you want to debate legal procedure, stick to facts—not fear tactics. If you're here to support justice, then elevate the conversation. But if you're just trying to sow doubt or demean someone's ability to defend themselves, that says a lot more about your motives than about my circumstances.
Posted by N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-10-2025, 11:28 PM
Your father better get busy finding one. Time is quickly running out.

The judge might declare you mentally incompetent if you don't and unable to contribute to your defense and order you detained for a psychological review. The DA will gladly suspend the case until that issue is resolved.
Posted by admin - 07-10-2025, 10:36 PM
The lawyer who come to see me at my house was giving us a list of lawyers who deal with type of thing. he wasn't here to act as my lawyer.
Posted by admin - 07-10-2025, 08:22 PM
That lawyer was just giving us a list of lawyer
This thread has more than 10 replies. Read the whole thread.