well, they believe this post:





This isn't a real person, this post was posted on the Hate and Flame website, a site that doesn't require a login and ANYONE can be ANYONE. But the police and state are TOO FUCKING STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THAT. AFTER ALL, WHY DID THEY PUT THOSE HEAVY RESTRICTIONS ON MY BAIL, BECAUSE OF THIS LIE. 

HEY YOU STUPID FUCKING RETARDS I AM GOING TO SUE ASS...MARK MY WORD, YOU FUCKER ARE GOING TO WISH YOU NEVER HEARD OF MY FUCKING NAME.

Here a recap for those who just joined and don't want to read all the stuff on here:

The case is about an individual (ME) was arrested by the state under 1 charge for one image which was computer generated and was found under a general search warrant. Computer generated images are legal according to both the US Supreme Court (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition 2002 and United States v Williams 2008) and the Illinois Supreme Court (People for the State of Illinois v Kenneth Alexander 2003) Not only are computer generated images legal, but they constitutionally protected speech under the first amendment unless deemed obscene. However, individuals have the right to look at obscene material in the privacy of their home (Stanley v Georgia US Supreme Court 1969) 

The image (which again was legal) was found under a general search warrant. General search warrants are unconstitutional and have been since the founding of the United States. The US Supreme Court has also established general search warrants are unconstitutional and a violation of a person's right. ( Marron v United States 1927 US Supreme Court, Carpenter v United States 2018 US Supreme Court, Katz v United States 1967 US Supreme Court, Marcus v Search Warrant 1961 US Supreme Court, Groh v Ramirez 2004 US Supreme Court)

The warrant in this case did not particularize what they were supposed to be looking for and did not set up a protocol for how the search of the electronic devices was to be conducted. Instead, the search warrant seized only the computers and allowed the FBI to rummage through everything and seize anything that they saw was contraband without having probable cause for that item or was the reason for the seizure to begin with. In fact, the FBI used software to look for hash codes which are associated with child porn, something they weren't authorized to do, but the warrant being a general search warrant, allowed them to do just that, because the warrant didn't state what items they had probable cause for or what even the crime was, instead it allowed the FBI to violate my constitutional rights. Therefore, the search warrant was a general warrant.

Here a recap for those who just joined and don't want to read all the stuff on here:

The case is about an individual (ME) was arrested by the state under 1 charge for one image which was computer generated and was found under a general search warrant. Computer generated images are legal according to both the US Supreme Court (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition 2002 and United States v Williams 2008) and the Illinois Supreme Court (People for the State of Illinois v Kenneth Alexander 2003) Not only are computer generated images legal, but they constitutionally protected speech under the first amendment unless deemed obscene. However, individuals have the right to look at obscene material in the privacy of their home (Stanley v Georgia US Supreme Court 1969) 

The image (which again was legal) was found under a general search warrant. General search warrants are unconstitutional and have been since the founding of the United States. The US Supreme Court has also established general search warrants are unconstitutional and a violation of a person's right. ( Marron v United States 1927 US Supreme Court, Carpenter v United States 2018 US Supreme Court, Katz v United States 1967 US Supreme Court, Marcus v Search Warrant 1961 US Supreme Court, Groh v Ramirez 2004 US Supreme Court) The warrant in this case did not particularize what they were supposed to be looking for and did not set up a protocol for how the search of the electronic devices was to be conducted. Instead, the search warrant seized only the computers and allowed the FBI to rummage through everything and seize anything that they saw was contraband without having probable cause for that item or was the reason for the seizure to begin with. In fact, the FBI used software to look for hash codes which are associated with child porn, something they weren't authorized to do, but the warrant being a general search warrant, allowed them to do just that, because the warrant didn't state what items they had probable cause for or what even the crime was, instead it allowed the FBI to violate my constitutional rights. Therefore, the search warrant was a general warrant.

WANT TO BE A CHILD AN POST MATERIAL THAT ISN'T ALLOWED (PORN) WELL YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH HERE...YOU BETTER HOPE TO FUCKING GOD I DON'T FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE. 


I WILL MAKE YOU WATCH AS I BURN YOUR FUCKING HOUSE DOWN WITH YOUR FUCKING FAMILY INSIDE.

There is BIG difference between Nick Rekieta and my case. I believe Nick warrant and Affidavit was based on a known informant while mine wasn't, the informant in my case was anonymous and was uncorroborated by the FBI and the police without additional investigation. His search warrant was based on the search for items (drugs) in his home, Mine was based on the seizure of 15 computers without stating in the warrant or affidavit what the crime was, or what they were looking for. They do mention in my warrant " information pertaining to internet searches pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence directed towards schools or public officials" but as the motion to suppress states: "However, that clause is in and of itself both overbroad and insufficiently particular. The affidavit did not contain any information establishing threats to public officials or towards schools in general. Had they actually connected Daugherty to that post (which they did not) the only possible thing they could investigate him for was the March 16, 2018, threat "FUCK YOU YOU STALKING MOTHER FUCKERS. I'LL SHOW YOU WHO IS AUSTIC. I'LL GO TO FUCKING MEMORIAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND MAKE SANDY HOOK LOOK LIKE A SUNDAY SCHOOL PICNIC" posted on hateandflame.com." They did NO investigation to link me to the threat, instead they arrested me and stole my stuff, based on a fucking LIE

 His (Nick) warrant was valid while mine is a general warrant. 

My Case

1. The information for the informant was uncorroborated and the police and the FBI DID NO INVESTIGATION into the case.
2. The warrant seized 15 computers without stating what they were looking for and allowed the seizure of "any and all data" without limiting what they can search for on those 15 devices.



perhaps you should read the motion to suppress and stop being a dumbass

suppression.pdf

Tuesday is the big day, and these are the various things that might happen:

1. The state flat out dismisses the whole thing.

2. The judge sets the thing for a hearing (Frank Hearing) to determine the motion to suppress. 

3. The judge grants the motion to suppress, and the thing gets thrown out.

4. Judge denies motion to suppress (which I then will appeal)

(PRONOGRAPHY IMAGE REMOVED)

New definition of child in illinois child porn law

Purported child" means a visual representation that appears to depict a child under the age of 18 but may or may not depict an actual child under the age of 18.