Todd Daugherty's Official Board › General › Main Board › When Todd threatened that school in 2018, it was an immanent threat
Post Reply

Post a New Reply
Reply to thread: When Todd threatened that school in 2018, it was an immanent threat
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 admin - 07-16-2025, 10:14 AM
The alleged threat was posted on a Friday. I was arrested Saturday night. That delay proves it wasn’t treated as an imminent threat. Law enforcement had time to investigate—but chose not to. Instead, they acted on an uncorroborated tip and arrested me without verifying the source, authorship, or credibility of the post. That’s not urgency—it’s negligence.
Posted by admin - 07-16-2025, 10:14 AM
(07-15-2025, 04:22 PM)TODD IS A CHILD MOLESTER Wrote:
Retard Wrote:The Supreme Court has ruled that speech must pose a real and immediate danger to justify bypassing investigation

Which this threat was. You were accessing the site and your family was accessing the site 21 times after you were arrested and before your computers were taken in a legal search warrant.

I suggest you work with your new lawyer instead of sabotaging your case by running your mouth on the internet. Are you going to lie to your lawyers also?

It wasn't immediate threat because the post was posted on a Friday, and I was arrested on Saturday. It was weekend therefore no immediate danger. Law enforcement had nearly 24 hours to investigate before arresting me.

During that time, they Did not corroborate the anonymous tip!
Posted by admin - 07-16-2025, 06:05 AM
I WOULDN'T BEAT ON IT BITCH, IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN
Posted by TODD IS A CHILD MOLESTER - 07-16-2025, 12:04 AM
Baby Manlet Wrote:Like I said 50 million dollars MOTHERFUCKER!!! THOSE FUCKIGN COCKSUCKER AT THE STAT OF ILLINOIS, TAYLORVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FBI ARE GOING TO WISH THEY NEVER HEARD OF MY FUCKING NAME. BELIEVE ME BITCH THIS IS GOING HAPPEN!!

There ya go. That's the real Todd Daugherty, not an AI bot.

Never going to happen but if it makes you feel better to say it like you have for the past 20 years........
Posted by admin - 07-15-2025, 05:18 PM
Like I said 50 million dollars MOTHERFUCKER!!! THOSE FUCKING COCKSUCKER AT THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, TAYLORVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FBI ARE GOING TO WISH THEY NEVER HEARD OF MY FUCKING NAME. BELIEVE ME BITCH THIS IS GOING HAPPEN!!

Constitutional Violations
  • Fourth Amendment: Illegal search and seizure, general warrant, post-quash search
  • Sixth Amendment: Denial of effective counsel, forced private representation
  • Fourteenth Amendment: Due process violations, suppression delays
  • Brady v. Maryland: Withholding exculpatory evidence
Duration of Harm
  • 7+ years of litigation, harassment, and reputational damage
  • Wrongful arrest, incarceration, and public defamation
  • Loss of employment, income, and stability
  • Emotional distress, mental anguish, and social isolation

Government Misconduct
  • FBI misrepresentation to a federal judge
  • State re-arrest based on a quashed warrant
  • Discovery obstruction and malicious interference
  • Public defender withdrawal triggered by third-party harassment
Posted by admin - 07-15-2025, 05:15 PM
Let’s be clear: I never lied to my lawyer.
You, on the other hand, contacted my public defender with false claims, attempting to undermine my credibility and interfere with my legal defense. That’s not just unethical—it’s malicious interference.
  • You made a claim that I lied, which is demonstrably false.
  • You inserted yourself into an active criminal case in which you have no legal standing.
  • You attempted to influence my representation by spreading misinformation.
This isn’t commentary—it’s tampering. And if you’re in communication with law enforcement or the State Attorney’s office, it raises serious questions about collusion, harassment, and civil rights violations.
I’m documenting everything. And if necessary, I’ll include your interference in my civil rights complaint. You don’t get to sabotage someone’s defense and call it “truth.”
Posted by admin - 07-15-2025, 05:12 PM
Let’s correct the record.
  1. I did not access the site.
    • The website in question does not require login credentials, and
    • Posts continued in my name while I was incarcerated, which the sheriff’s office confirmed.
    • The site’s host and legal counsel later verified that I never accessed the platform.
  2. My family’s IP logs were never linked to any posts.
    • Accessing a public website is not illegal, nor does it prove authorship.
    • No evidence has ever shown that my family posted anything—only that they may have viewed the site, likely out of concern.
  3. The search warrant was not legal.
    • It was issued five days after the alleged threat, without corroboration of the tip.
    • It was a general warrant, authorizing the seizure of “any and all computers” and data—violating the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.
    • The warrant was later quashed, and the charges were dropped.
As for your suggestion—I am working with my attorney. But asserting my rights and documenting misconduct is not “sabotage.” It’s called defending myself. And no, I’m not lying to my lawyer. I’m giving them the truth that the State has spent years trying to bury.
Posted by TODD IS A CHILD MOLESTER - 07-15-2025, 04:22 PM
Retard Wrote:The Supreme Court has ruled that speech must pose a real and immediate danger to justify bypassing investigation

Which this threat was. You were accessing the site and your family was accessing the site 21 times after you were arrested and before your computers were taken in a legal search warrant.

I suggest you work with your new lawyer instead of sabotaging your case by running your mouth on the internet. Are you going to lie to your lawyers also?
Posted by admin - 07-15-2025, 03:37 PM
Let’s talk about timing—because it exposes the truth.
- The alleged threat was posted on March 16, 2018.
- The search warrant for my 15 computers was issued on March 21, 2018—five days later.
If the police truly believed this was an “imminent threat,” they wouldn’t have waited nearly a week to act. That delay proves they had time to:
- Investigate the source of the post
- Corroborate the anonymous tip
- Verify whether I had access to the site or the internet
- Determine whether the threat was credible or fabricated
Instead, they rushed to arrest me without investigation, then waited five days to seize my property—based on a general warrant and an affidavit that omitted key facts.
This wasn’t a response to an imminent threat. It was a failure to investigate, followed by a constitutionally defective search.
Posted by admin - 07-15-2025, 03:35 PM
The threat was posted on March 16th, 2018, and they police didn't get the search warrant for the 15 computers until March 21st, 2018. That was plenty of time for the police to establish probable cause and corroborate the tip, which they didn't. So, your claim is invalid.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Read the whole thread.