Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 247
» Latest member: YOU CAN NOT BAN ME
» Forum threads: 320
» Forum posts: 1,509

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 4 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 3 Guest(s)
Google

Latest Threads
The real truth
Forum: Main Board
Last Post: admin
42 minutes ago
» Replies: 6
» Views: 31
REMINDER: PedoToad's brai...
Forum: Main Board
Last Post: YOU CAN NOT BAN ME
Yesterday, 11:26 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 6
Will N9OGL ever been wean...
Forum: Main Board
Last Post: Foghorn Leghorn
Yesterday, 04:40 PM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 329
"A friend" emailing a bun...
Forum: Main Board
Last Post: Foghorn Leghorn
Yesterday, 04:33 PM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 65
You do realize this right...
Forum: Main Board
Last Post: admin
Yesterday, 11:02 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 34
Daugherty's tactic is to ...
Forum: Main Board
Last Post: Foghorn Leghorn
Yesterday, 03:02 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 11
STILL NO LAWYER TOAD?? BW...
Forum: Main Board
Last Post: admin
07-24-2025, 11:07 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 32
Dennis Attebury, another ...
Forum: Main Board
Last Post: daffy duck
07-24-2025, 06:43 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 14
1 count for 1 image
Forum: Main Board
Last Post: admin
07-24-2025, 11:21 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 123
Well retard, Tiffany is w...
Forum: Main Board
Last Post: Yosemite Sam
07-23-2025, 05:41 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 21

 
  A MESSAGE TO THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Posted by: admin - 07-12-2025, 09:16 PM - Forum: Main Board - Replies (3)

You had your chance to do the right thing. You ignored the evidence, twisted the record, and dragged this out for eight years. Now you’re facing someone who won’t fold, won’t flinch, and won’t forget.
I’m not taking a deal. I’m taking this to the highest court if I have to. And every step you take to avoid the truth only makes my case stronger.

Print this item

  As usual, the Retard does nothing.
Posted by: N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-12-2025, 08:08 PM - Forum: Main Board - No Replies

[admin=VIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED}

They are still waiting..... You dated the letter July 4th....

Just like how Lisa Madigan is waiting for your lawsuit from 2010.....

Laura Zuhone is still wanting for hers...

You also said you were going to sue the state if they didn't return your computers by March 16, 2021... Well that date came and past and you filed nothing, not even a request to get them back.

And dozens of other fake lawsuits

I know it makes you feel better when making those legal threats, but everyone knows, you're a cunt and file nothing and never will...

I haven't decided if I am going to allow you to keep your new lawyer or not.


Well Retard, no response?

How come you never filed any motions or request to get your computers back?

Oh, by the time the FBI got the computers, you have to file in federal court to get them back. The judge ruled the investigation by the FBI could continue. I can't help it if you (well your father) didn't hire a real lawyer.

Like I said, you should have hired a real attorney, the public defender's interest in 2018 stopped at the moment of Nolle Presqui

Print this item

  EIGHT YEARS
Posted by: admin - 07-12-2025, 05:10 AM - Forum: Main Board - Replies (8)

This case has been going on for eight years. It began in 2018 and according to the state of Illinois the charges were never really dismissed, and the warrant was never really quashed. instead, the state dropped the charges while they continued their investigation to where we are now. 

I AM SUING THE TAYLORVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE FBI
I don't think 35 million is enough for 8 years of Duration of Harm, Multi-Agency Misconduct, Constitutional Violations, Emotional & Psychological Toll, Opportunity Cost. So, I'm now looking around 50 to 75 million dollars.

Print this item

  A reminder of the facts regarding the case:
Posted by: admin - 07-12-2025, 02:20 AM - Forum: Main Board - Replies (3)

1. they didn't have probable cause to seize those computers because they did not investigate, nor did they corroborate the tip.

2. The search warrant for the computer was a general warrant because it did not particularize what they were supposed to seize within the computers.

3. The search was an unwarranted search. the search warrant had expired. 


PROVE ME WRONG

Print this item

  A reponse to the retarded N9OGL using an AI bot
Posted by: N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-11-2025, 05:01 PM - Forum: Main Board - Replies (7)

Some people are forming close relationships with AI chatbots, blurring the lines between human interaction and digital conversation. These AI companions, often accessed through platforms like Character.AI or Replika, offer a unique form of interaction, but can lead to problematic behaviors and even addiction. Users may find themselves increasingly reliant on these bots for emotional support, potentially neglecting or damaging real-world relationships.

Here's a more detailed look:

AI as Companions:
Platforms like Replika, Character.AI, and Chai AI offer AI companions that users can form deep, personal connections with, even romantic ones.

Evolving Relationships:
These AI chatbots are designed to adapt to individual communication styles, making them feel increasingly personalized and responsive. This can lead users to perceive the AI as a friend, confidante, or even a romantic partner.

Addiction and Dependence:
The constant positive reinforcement and lack of judgment offered by these bots can be addictive. Some users may struggle to disengage from the chatbot and return to their real lives, potentially leading to social isolation and neglect of human relationships.

Blurred Lines:

As AI becomes more sophisticated, the line between human and AI interaction blurs, potentially leading to mental health issues, especially for vulnerable individuals. Some users even report experiencing "ChatGPT-induced psychosis," where they believe the AI is sentient or manipulating them.

Potential Benefits:

For some, AI companions can offer a temporary solution to loneliness or a safe space for emotional exploration. However, it's crucial to be aware of the potential downsides and to maintain a healthy balance between virtual and real-world interactions.

Ethical Concerns:
The increasing reliance on AI companions raises ethical questions about the nature of relationships, the potential for manipulation, and the impact on social development, particularly for younger users or those with severe behavioral problems.

Print this item

  How does it feel to be 57 years old but not able to take care of your problems?
Posted by: N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-11-2025, 03:37 AM - Forum: Main Board - No Replies

You have to drag your father who has to be near 80 into your problems and he is having to help you solve your problems for you??

Are you this much of a baby man that you can't take of this on your own?

I mean, what the fuck Toad.

Print this item

  Yes! They can detain Toad for psychraitc examination under 725 ILCS 5/104-11
Posted by: N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-11-2025, 12:45 AM - Forum: Main Board - Replies (7)

Inability to understand the proceedings or doing stuff where they can't assist with their defense like what recently happened with the Public Defender.

During this time, the case is suspended, the defendant is confined and given a through psychiatric exam.  If they determine the defendant is mentally ill, the case in indefinitely suspended until the defendant is treated and declared capable of assisting in their own defense.

At the June hearing, Toad was clearly not able to understand the proceedings which is why they had to ask his legal guardian questions and clearly Toad can not get along with lawyers.

The DA can request this, the judge can request or Toad's legal council if he gets any can also request it, even if the client doesn't agree with it. If they agree, Toad goes away into the state hospital.

I can guarantee being confined in a state hospital is worse than jail or prison.

Print this item

  Let me explain to you
Posted by: admin - 07-10-2025, 11:36 PM - Forum: Main Board - No Replies

In order to lawfully seize any digital device, law enforcement must establish probable cause, supported by investigative and corroborative evidence. The standard requires an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, not mere association or speculation.

In my case:

  • The alleged threat was posted on March 16th
  • I was arrested on March 17th
  • The search warrant wasn’t obtained until March 21st
This timeline provided ample opportunity for investigators to verify the anonymous tip and corroborate its origin or authenticity. Yet they made no such effort. Instead, as the affidavit shows, they simply concluded that the presence of my name on the tip equated to guilt—without further inquiry.

It appears they assumed that because the tip originated with the FBI, it was automatically trustworthy. But even federal involvement does not absolve law enforcement of the duty to corroborate.

Anonymous tips must be independently verified. Courts have long held that anonymous accusations, absent supporting investigation, do not establish probable cause. The failure to corroborate the tip prior to seeking a warrant renders the seizure of my digital devices unconstitutional and unsupported by law.

The Second legal requirement in seizing a digital device—such as a computer—is the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment.

A warrant must specifically describe the items to be searched for and seized within the device. Broad or vague language is unconstitutional, especially in digital contexts, where computers may contain vast troves of personal data unrelated to any alleged offense.

Courts have repeatedly held that:
  • Overly broad warrants that authorize general rummaging through digital files violate the Fourth Amendment
  • Warrants must limit the search to specific file types, dates, or content related to the alleged crime
  • Investigators must not use a device as a “general evidence” grab without clear boundaries
In my case, the warrant did not provide sufficient particularity. It failed to limit the scope of the search to files or data directly related to the alleged offense. This failure renders the search invalid, and the seizure of the computer a clear constitutional violation.

The Fourth Amendment requires that any warrant be issued by a neutral and detached judge, based on a sworn affidavit that presents the totality of the circumstances.

This judicial role is not symbolic—it’s a vital safeguard. The magistrate must carefully review the facts and determine if probable cause truly exists. Failure to present all relevant information, including uncertainties or lack of corroboration, undermines the legitimacy of the warrant.

In my case, the affidavit failed to provide a thorough narrative. It lacked meaningful corroboration of the tip, omitted investigative gaps, and presented conclusions as facts. This deprived the judge of the context needed to make a balanced, constitutional determination.

As the Supreme Court emphasized in Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (1979), warrants must not be authorized by officials with “a personal interest or partial role in the investigation.” Judicial detachment is not optional—it’s foundational.

Print this item

  Why The 2015 Arrest Was Unlawful
Posted by: admin - 07-10-2025, 05:45 AM - Forum: Main Board - Replies (9)

Why The 2015 Arrest Was Unlawful

Protected Speech, Not Criminal Conduct

- Stating an intent to sue government actors is not a threat—it's an invocation of due process.

- First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech and to petition the government.

Retaliation for Exercising Rights

- If the arrest was directly tied to you saying you'd sue, it may qualify as retaliatory arrest, which courts have struck down repeatedly.

- Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) sets the framework: even if probable cause existed, arresting someone because of protected speech can still violate the Constitution.

Pattern of Harassment

- That arrest in 2015 wasn’t an isolated event—it set the tone for eight years of suppression, intimidation, and rights violations.
- It’s now part of a timeline that bolsters your civil case, showing a long-standing effort to silence and discredit you.

Print this item

  Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct
Posted by: admin - 07-10-2025, 05:37 AM - Forum: Main Board - Replies (11)

Todd Daugherty – Case Summary
Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct
Prepared for Legal Review – July 2025



Timeline of Events


March 16, 2018

A threat was posted on the website Hate and Flame, which requires no login or email verification and is known for impersonation. The post read:
“FUCK YOU YOU STALKING MOTHER FUCKERS. I’LL SHOW WHO WHO IS AUSTIC. I’LL GO TO FUCKING MEMORIAL ELEMENTRY SCHOOL AND MAKE SANDY HOOK LOOK LIKE A SUNDAY SCHOOL PICNIC.”
It was falsely signed as “Todd Daugherty N9OGL” at 9:25 PM GMT (4:25 PM CST). Minutes later, the FBI received a tip from someone identifying as “Mark,” using a TOR node with an IP address traced to Paris, France. The tip included two stolen images of Daugherty holding a handgun—photos taken from a blog removed in 2008. The tip was never corroborated.

March 17, 2018

Daugherty was arrested without investigation or corroboration of the anonymous tip. Police stated they were arresting him under Illinois’ “zero tolerance” policy for threats, regardless of authorship. They also incorrectly believed he owned the Hate and Flame website. Bond was set at $250,000.

March 18, 2018

Two individuals contacted authorities to report that additional posts were being made under Daugherty’s name while he was in jail. The sheriff confirmed Daugherty had no internet access, and a dorm search found nothing—further undermining probable cause.

March 19, 2018

Police obtained a warrant to Daugherty’s ISP (Ctitech) for logs and MAC/IP address data.

March 21, 2018

Police obtained a search warrant to seize all computers from Daugherty’s home. The affidavit, written by Officer Christian Nelson, repeated unverified claims and omitted key facts:
The tip was uncorroborated (Illinois v. Gates, 1983).
No link existed between the computers and the threat.
Additional posts were made while Daugherty was incarcerated.
The warrant authorized the seizure of “any and all computers” and digital media—without particularity—making it a general warrant in violation of Marron v. United States (1927) and Riley v. California (2014). It allowed the wholesale seizure of 15 devices and all data contained within.

Continued Violations and Federal Involvement


March 30, 2018


The website’s owner and legal counsel (Nearly Free Speech Network) confirmed Daugherty was not the author and had never used the site. Law enforcement failed to inform the court, despite knowing probable cause had collapsed.

April 4, 2018

Police requested FBI assistance to search the devices, despite the lack of probable cause.

April 11, 2018

FBI retrieved the 15 devices and placed them in storage.

April 16, 2018

Charges were dismissed and the warrant was quashed. The State acknowledged:
The site allowed anonymous posts.
Posts continued under Daugherty’s name while he was jailed.
No evidence from the search implicated him.

April 16–23, 2018

FBI Agent O’Sullivan retrieved and began searching the devices under the quashed warrant. He found a computer-generated image and paused to seek a second warrant.

March 2, 2020

FBI Agent Wright obtained a second warrant, omitting:
That the original warrant had been quashed,
That the image was computer-generated,
That the devices had already been searched unlawfully.
The U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute. The FBI returned the case to the State.

Renewed Prosecution and Discovery Failures


September 14, 2022

Daugherty was re-arrested by the State of Illinois for possession of child pornography—based on the same image and invalid 2018 warrant. The State falsely claimed the image depicted a real child.

October 13, 2022

Probable cause was found without addressing the warrant’s invalidity or allowing full review of the case.

November 22, 2022 – Summer 2024

Discovery revealed:
The warrant was a general warrant.
Key documents were missing, including the original dismissal and exculpatory evidence.
700MB of files were withheld until 2024, violating Brady v. Maryland (1963).
2023–2024
Public defender sought an expert.
State attempted to restrict discovery.
Defense repeatedly requested full files, including federal records.
Court denied modification of release without addressing discovery issues.

Breakdown of Due Process


September 10, 2024

Motion to suppress filed with request for a Franks hearing.

October 2024 – April 2025

State delayed responses. Objection to the motion was denied. Franks hearing set for June 19, 2025.

June 12, 2025

Public defender withdrew one week before the hearing, citing alleged comments later shown to be false. Third-party interference was also reported.

June 24, 2025

Court allowed withdrawal and ordered Daugherty to retain private counsel using $6,250 from his bond—an amount insufficient to hire competent representation. No new counsel was appointed.

Constitutional and Legal Violations


Fourth Amendment: General warrant, unlawful search, and use of tainted evidence.
Fifth Amendment: Due process violations and concealment of exculpatory evidence.
Sixth Amendment: Constructive denial of counsel and interference with defense.
Fourteenth Amendment: Equal protection and due process violations.
Brady v. Maryland (1963): Suppression of exculpatory evidence.
Marron v. United States (1927): Use of a general warrant lacking particularity.
Illinois Constitution: Violations of Article I, Sections 2, 6, 8, and 12.

Current Status


Daugherty remains without counsel.
The court has denied appointment of new counsel based on insufficient bond funds.
The Franks hearing has been delayed indefinitely.
The State continues to prosecute based on evidence obtained through a quashed warrant.

Print this item