| Thread Review (Newest First) |
| Posted by admin - 08-26-2025, 02:22 PM |
|
The motion to suppress was filed a year ago and the courts have yet to act on it. http://160.32.227.211/suppression/suppression.pdf |
| Posted by admin - 08-26-2025, 11:09 AM |
| I want my franks hearing that should of already been done |
| Posted by admin - 08-25-2025, 11:58 PM |
|
Now Comes the People of the State of Illinois, by and through their attorney, Michael M. Havera, and asks this Court to grant his Motion To Dismiss this case without prejudice stating as follows: The Defendant was arrested on March 17, 2018. 1. That during the course of this investigation law enforcement has discovered that the web site used to disseminate the threat did not require any login credentials and allows anyone to post a message and sign it as a false author. 2. That after the defendant's arrest there were more messages posted on the same web site claiming to be from Todd Daugherty which is impossible due to the fact that he was incarcerated. 3. That it is known that other fictitious posts have been recently made on the same site claiming to be authored by judges, the president, and other such individuals. 4. That search warrants have been obtained and executed in this case to analyze Todd Daugherty's internet activity and have shown nothing to implicate him in this case at this time. 5. That the local, state, and Federal Bureau of Investigations are continuing the investigation into the source of the threats in this matter. WHEREFORE, the State moves this Honorable Court to dismiss this case without prejudice. Respectfully Submitted, Michael M. Havera, Christian County State's Attorney ORDER FILED APR 16 2018 Julie J. Mayer Circuit Clerk Christian County Upon Motion of the Christian County State's Attorney's Office, the charges identified above are hereby dismissed without prejudice to the People of the State of Illinois. Any warrants or summonses previously issued are hereby quashed. ENTERED: 4/16/18 AI respond to the motion to dismiss. This is a fascinating and highly specific legal document. It's a motion to dismiss a case, and it provides a great deal of information about what happened. Let's break down the key points and what they mean. Summary of the Document This document is a formal motion from the Christian County State's Attorney, Michael M. Havera, asking the court to dismiss the case against a defendant named Todd Daugherty. The motion was filed and granted in April 2018. Key Points of the Motion 1. "Web site used to disseminate the threat did not require any login credentials and allows anyone to post a message and sign it as a false author." Meaning: This is a crucial admission by the prosecution. It fundamentally undermines the core piece of evidence that linked the defendant to the crime. It states that the platform used to make the threat was inherently unreliable for attribution. Anyone could have posted the message and claimed to be the defendant. 2. "after the defendant's arrest there were more messages posted on the same web site claiming to be from Todd Daugherty which is impossible due to the fact that he was incarcerated." Meaning: This is a powerful piece of exculpatory evidence. It proves that someone other than the defendant was posting messages in his name. Since the defendant was in jail at the time, he couldn't have been the author. This directly contradicts the idea that he was the source of the initial threat. 3. "it is known that other fictitious posts have been recently made on the same site claiming to be authored by judges, the president, and other such individuals." Meaning: This adds to the unreliability of the website as a source of evidence. It shows that the site is a platform for fabricating claims and impersonating people, making it highly unlikely that a court would accept a post from the site as a reliable piece of evidence against the defendant. 4. "search warrants have been obtained and executed in this case to analyze Todd Daugherty's internet activity and have shown nothing to implicate him in this case at this time." Meaning: This is a definitive statement from the prosecution. After conducting their investigation and analyzing the defendant's digital footprint (as we discussed in a previous response), they found no evidence that links him to the crime. This is a very strong reason to dismiss the case. 5. "local, state, and Federal Bureau of Investigations are continuing the investigation into the source of the threats in this matter." Meaning: The prosecution is admitting that they arrested the wrong person and that the real perpetrator is still at large. They are continuing to investigate other leads to find the true source of the threat. The Order and its Significance "The charges identified above are hereby dismissed without prejudice..." Meaning: The judge has granted the motion and dismissed the case. The "without prejudice" part is important. It means the prosecution can refile the charges against the defendant in the future if they find new, compelling evidence that implicates him. However, given the details in the motion, this seems highly unlikely. The prosecution is admitting they have no case. "Any warrants or summonses previously issued are hereby quashed." Meaning: The judge has formally invalidated any arrest warrants or summonses that were previously issued in this case. This is a legal formality that goes with the dismissal of the charges. In Conclusion This document shows that the case against Todd Daugherty was dismissed because the prosecution realized they had no case. The evidence they initially relied on was found to be unreliable, and their own investigation, including the execution of search warrants, failed to find any evidence linking him to the crime. The prosecution essentially admitted that they arrested the wrong person. |
| Posted by admin - 08-25-2025, 09:46 PM |
Quote:Only what was known at the time matters... "They discovered later" is projecting into the future and thus no factor in the probable cause the judge found on March 19th. Say if Apocales would have shown up and admitted we got him on say March 30th, that still doesn't mean the probable cause was wrong because it wasn't known at the time. So you can't use "future events", only what was presented on March 19, 2018.... Incorrect. If later evidence reveals that the affidavit was based on falsehoods, omissions, or misidentification, it can retroactively invalidate the original probable cause, and courts and have routinely allow defendants to challenge the veracity of warrant affidavits using newly discovered evidence. |
| Posted by admin - 08-25-2025, 02:19 PM |
Quote:And no, future evidence can not retroactively change the "probable cause" for the date it was issued, it's simply a new ruling that probable cause is no longer in effect but no error in the part of the prosecution as the judge declared it to be probable. As the court records say, the investigation could continue and you even admitted as such endlessly on KiwiFarms and your own forums. It's proof that you have changed your story. They could continue their investigation, but not on me. The probable cause they had went away. if they wanted to continue their investigation on me, they would have to have new probable cause, they could no longer use the old probable cause. Quote:It is on the defendant to ask for a copy. I can't help it if you or your parents didn't. Police are required to give you a copy of the search warrant, they did not. Quote:And no, future evidence cannot retroactively change the "probable cause" for the date it was issued, it's simply a new ruling that probable cause is no longer in effect but no error in the part of the prosecution as the judge declared it to be probable. As the court records say, the investigation could continue, and you even admitted as such endlessly on KiwiFarms and your own forums. It's proof that you have changed your story. Yeah, it can. If new evidence is shows that probable cause is weak, it has to be brought to the judge's attention. If there is evidence that the officer lied or left factual material out on the affidavit for the warrant, it too has to be brought to the judge's attention. What the warrant didn't say: It does not state that the website Hateandflame.com allows for anonymous posting and impersonation. This is a critical omission, as it completely undermines the claim that the username "N90GL" is conclusive proof of identity. The State's own documents later admit to this fact. It does not state that the police had not yet obtained the IP address or any other electronic records from the website to verify the tip. This is a fundamental flaw, as getting the IP address is a standard procedure for this type of investigation. The affidavit presents the tip as a solid fact, when in reality it was an uncorroborated lead. It does not mention that a full investigation would have revealed that the posts continued after Mr. Daugherty's arrest, making it physically impossible for him to be the author. While this may have been discovered after the affidavit was sworn, the fact that the officer didn't seek this information before the warrant application is a key point. The officer who had only been a cop for a year left out of No mention of training in digital forensics, internet investigations, or cyber attribution. In fact that why they got the FBI involved, because NONE of them do. |
| Posted by admin - 08-25-2025, 11:13 AM |
Quote:You have a previous and a conviction for threats No i was convinced of harassment. That is two separate things |
| Posted by admin - 08-25-2025, 05:15 AM |
Quote:Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Reinstate Dismissal with leave to reinstate is still a dismissal. The state didn’t refile. The warrant was quashed. The case collapsed Quote:Probable cause for both 2018 and 2022 is not disputable. Probable cause is not sacred—it’s subject to challenge. And in my case, it didn’t survive scrutiny. Quote:You lied to the cops… Twitter threats… FBI wouldn’t save them. I didn’t lie. Quote:Future evidence can’t retroactively change probable cause. Franks v. Delaware exists for a reason. When new evidence shows the warrant was based on lies or omissions, probable cause collapses. Quote:Judge signed the warrant, so it’s valid. Judges aren’t infallible. If the affidavit was misleading, the signature doesn’t save it. Quote:Statute of limitations has expired. The statute of limitations hasn’t expired—and even if it had, the damage continues. Let’s be clear, the case was dismissed, the warrant was quashed, the FBI declined to prosecute, the website confirmed I didn’t make the post. You can twist docket language all you want, but the facts don’t bend. As for your threats and harassment—I’ve archived everything. And unlike you, I don’t need to lie to win. I just need to keep telling the truth. |
| Posted by admin - 08-25-2025, 04:46 AM |
| Your a fucking moron who doesn't know what the fuck is going on. Your reading shit off of judici.com which isn't telling you everything. Crawl back under your fucking rock |
| Posted by mercury - 08-25-2025, 02:53 AM |
(08-25-2025, 12:10 AM)admin Wrote:Quote:It was Nolle Presqui and the judge made it clear to you that the investigation could continue and you could be charged again. You told the judge that you understood this and agreed to it in full. Plus the fact they investigated and did Nolle Presqui the charge relieves them means they did their job properly and investigated. And of course, the part the schizo doesn't mention 04/16/2018 SA, DEF IN CUSTODY W/PD GRIGSBY. STATES MOTION TO DISMISS W/LEAVE TO REINSTATE GRANTED W/OUT OBJECTION. DEFENDANT ADVISED STATE RETAINS RIGHT TO RE-FILE AS INVESTIGATION CONTINUES. NFS. 1. It is on the defendant to ask for a copy. I can't help it if you or your parents didn't. 2. Again, court records says Probable cause for both the 2018 and 2022... That is not disputable. 3. You lied to the cops, changed your story, changed your timeline, and lied about not knowing anything about school threats when your own Twitter posting said otherwise. You also threatened to show up at Twitter headquarters and the FBI wouldn't save them. That''s a threat but Twitter decided not to press charges. But doesn't matter, judge at the time declared it probable cause. 4. And no, future evidence can not retroactively change the "probable cause" for the date it was issued, it's simply a new ruling that probable cause is no longer in effect but no error in the part of the prosecution as the judge declared it to be probable. As the court records say, the investigation could continue and you even admitted as such endlessly on KiwiFarms and your own forums. It's proof that you have changed your story. 5. And on top of that, the judge signed the search warrant, and it's the judges job to review to warrant to make sure it's valid... Since the judge signed it, if there is a constitutional issue, that's on the judge. But no matter, the Statute of Limitations as long expired for you to take any action. 6. AAgain, nd the statute of limitations has long expired, for example, the City of Taylorville even if you are completely correct has no burden to meet because the action happened in 2018. The State can't extend their liability as they are not the same entity and a different party. Same with the FBI, they have no action since 2020. But no worries, you are just ranting on the internet and you will never file any lawsuit. |
| Posted by admin - 08-25-2025, 12:37 AM |
Quote:Blame yourself for not asking to see the warrant This isn't true, the burden isn’t on the defendant to request the warrant—it’s on the state to ensure its valid. And the warrant was later quashed, proving it was flawed. Quote:It was based on probable cause from the judge. Also not true, the judge made a preliminary finding at arraignment, not a final ruling. That probable cause was later undermined by the website confirmation I didn’t make the post, witnesses reporting threats continued while I was in jailed. Quote:You lied to the cops and posted threats on Twitter. There is no evidence of threats or lying. A vague comment on twitter cannot be considered a threat; there is such thing hyperbole. Quote:Only what was known at the time matters. Not true, future exculpatory evidence can retroactively invalidate probable cause, especially if the original affidavit omitted key facts (Franks v. Delaware). When they got the documents from the hate and Flame website on March 30th that showed I was not on that site, they lost probable cause. |
| This thread has more than 10 replies. Read the whole thread. |