The answer is no.

He loves to talked about things "he used to do", rather real or not.....,

He USED to work.... (only part-time near minimal wage jobs)
He USED to live on his own so he claims.... (lived with his aunt/uncle because he couldn't be around Michelle's infant daughter)
He USED to own a car... (it was in his father's name)
He USED to not have a criminal record (he now has an extensive record and long FBI file)
He USED to fly PPG (although no evidence he ever did)
He USED to be a pirate radio operator (parents made him stop)
He USED to have teeth (rotted out in early adulthood due to lack of hygiene)

Notice the keyword is USED... He no longer is any of those things, which means at age 56 makes him a complete FAIL as he has declined beyond that of a rational adult.. Combine that with he was in special education in high school and has speaking disabilities and dyslexia and other grammar problems.

I still think it's funny and cute that you still think I'm going to prison. I'll remember that when I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

Just think, your parents wouldn't have to take care of you anymore and you would get your own place. We know you qualify and the tard tower has vans that would make sure you made all your doctors and court visits. And your parents could finally enjoy Florida or Belize or able to have their grandchildren visit them a lot more often without fear. And for once, enjoy some time alone without the burden of you.

So watcha say? You going to apply for living in a tard tower say in Springfield or Peoria??? I'm sure your parents would visit from time to time.

Better than jail, isn't it?

I bet you didn't even give them anything for Christmas did you? While I'm sure they got you things.

Just like a 6 year old girl

BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO PRISON

Be thankful that your parents have kept you another year out of jail because without them, that's where you would be right now waiting for trial.

Your autism is getting bad again, I hope you don't start to threaten schools again.

“At the same time, the warrant authorized the wholesale seizure of all electronic devices discovered in the apartment, including items owned by third parties. In those circumstances, we conclude that the warrant was unsupported by probable cause and unduly broad in its reach.” United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265, 1270-71 (D.C. Cir. 2017)


“Although we pay "great deference" to the judge's initial determination of probable cause, a warrant application cannot rely merely on "conclusory statement[s]." Id. at 236, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (citing Nathanson v. United States , 290 U.S. 41, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159 (1933) ).” United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2017)


The Supreme Court has long distinguished between arrest warrants and search warrants. See Steagald v. United States , 451 U.S. 204, 212-13, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981). An arrest warrant rests on probable cause to believe that the suspect committed an offense; it thus primarily serves to protect an individual's liberty interest against an unreasonable seizure of his person. Id. at 213, 101 S.Ct. 1642. A search warrant, by contrast, is grounded in "probable cause to believe that the legitimate object of a search is located in a particular place." Id. Rather than protect an individual's person, a search warrant "safeguards an individual's interest in the privacy of his home and possessions against the unjustified intrusion of the police."
United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2017)


Regardless of whether an individual is validly suspected of committing a crime, an application for a search warrant concerning his property or possessions must demonstrate cause to believe that "evidence is likely to be found at the place to be searched." Groh v. Ramirez , 540 U.S. 551, 568, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004). Moreover, "[t]here must, of course, be a nexus ... between the item to be seized and criminal behavior." Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden , 387 U.S. 294, 307, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967).
United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2017)


The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants "particularly describe" the "things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. That condition "ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit." Garrison , 480 U.S. at 84, 107 S.Ct. 1013. Consequently, a warrant with an "indiscriminate sweep" is "constitutionally intolerable." Stanford v. Texas , 379 U.S. 476, 486, 85 S.Ct. 506, 13 L.Ed.2d 431 (1965). We will hold a warrant invalid when "overly broad." United States v. Maxwell , 920 F.2d 1028, 1033-34 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265, 1275 (D.C. Cir. 2017)


The warrant's overbreadth is particularly notable because police sought to seize otherwise lawful objects: electronic devices. Courts have allowed more latitude in connection with searches for contraband items like "weapons [or] narcotics." Stanford , 379 U.S. at 486, 85 S.Ct. 506 (internal quotation marks omitted). But the understanding is different when police seize "innocuous" objects. See Andresen v. Maryland , 427 U.S. 463, 482 n.11, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976). Those circumstances call for special "care to assure [the search is] conducted in a manner that minimizes unwarranted intrusions upon privacy." Id. ; see also 2 LaFave, Search & Seizure § 4.6(d).
United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

Prison might get him rehabilitated and fixed on proper medication so his anger issues and autism issues will get more under control.

His parents have tried and failed for 56 years.

1. 1996 Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)

2. In 2002 the US Supreme Court struck the law down because it made materials using "virtual children" illegal (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition 2002)

3. In 2003 Congress passed the PROTECT ACT replaced the CPPA removing the issues in CPPA. 

4. In 2008 a part of the PROTECT ACT was struck down because it only contained one of three prongs of the miller test (for obscenity) when the US Supreme court has stated in the past all three prongs are required to deem something obscene. (United States v Handley) 

5. Also, in 2008 The US Supreme court ruled that the pandering (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) section of PROTECT ACT was constitutional. Like obscenity, pandering child porn and virtual child porn is illegal to buy or sell through interstate commerce. The Court further stated that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) would not be construed to punish the solicitation or offering of "virtual" (computer generated/animated) child pornography, thus comporting with the holding of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). In keeping with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002),[6] The Court stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,' post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever." (United States v Williams 2008 US Supreme Court)