+- Todd Daugherty's Official Board (http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl)
+-- Forum: General (http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Main Board (http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct (/showthread.php?tid=445)
Pages:
1
2
Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct - admin - 07-10-2025
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.
RE: Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct - N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-10-2025
Did you get rejected by the lawyer you spoke to on June 30th?
RE: Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct - admin - 07-10-2025
That lawyer was just giving us a list of lawyer
RE: Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct - admin - 07-10-2025
The lawyer who come to see me at my house was giving us a list of lawyers who deal with type of thing. he wasn't here to act as my lawyer.
RE: Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct - N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-10-2025
Your father better get busy finding one. Time is quickly running out.
The judge might declare you mentally incompetent if you don't and unable to contribute to your defense and order you detained for a psychological review. The DA will gladly suspend the case until that issue is resolved.
RE: Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct - admin - 07-10-2025
My ability to seek legal representation is entirely mine to manage. Suggesting that my father needs to "get busy" or that I'm incapable of doing so on my own is not only patronizing—it’s irrelevant to the legal realities of my case.
As for mental competency: that determination requires evidence, not conjecture. Judges follow a strict standard before ordering psychological evaluation. They don't base those decisions on internet opinions or assumptions. Unless you're a licensed attorney or mental health expert involved in the proceedings, you're in no position to predict what a judge might do—and frankly, it's irresponsible to weaponize mental health as leverage.
The idea that the DA would "gladly suspend the case" ignores due process. If charges are dismissed, the State must follow the law—not personal vendettas or procedural loopholes.
If you want to debate legal procedure, stick to facts—not fear tactics. If you're here to support justice, then elevate the conversation. But if you're just trying to sow doubt or demean someone's ability to defend themselves, that says a lot more about your motives than about my circumstances.
RE: Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct - N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-11-2025
You deleted my response and I didn't even violate your Terms of Service.
1. Your father is your legal guardian as proven by the court. He better get busy.
2. A judge can determine if you need a mental competency hearing and you need to stop using AI to answer your question for you, while disregarding the answers you don't like or want to hear.
3. The DA would gladly suspend the case in order for you to get a fair mental competency hearing. In fact, that's the procedure for such a hearing.
4. You obviously have proven you can't defend yourself as Tiffany and the judge both agreed when you lost your public defender. This probably is your chance before going for a competency hearing or violation of the terms of your agreed to bail agreement.
5. Who at 57 still relies on their father to help them with problems in life? Shouldn't you be a big boy now and take care of that shit yourself. Of course, your father is your legal guardian as proven on the June 24th hearing. Again, 3rd parties can't ask judges questions, only a legal guardian, the defendant themselves or a lawyer can.
6. Again, your using AI for your responses. I'm not here to support justice. I'm here to fuck you over. I've already found you guilty. If you think the US justice system is fair, then you are really fucked up.
RE: Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct - admin - 07-11-2025
I didn't delete shit pal
RE: Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct - admin - 07-11-2025
- My father is not my legal guardian, and there is no court ruling stating otherwise. Asking a question in a public hearing does not confer legal authority. Legal guardianship is a formal designation involving court orders, paperwork, and oversight. You stating it doesn’t make it so.
- I absolutely do have the right to use AI to assist me—and unlike you, AI isn’t driven by bias, anger, or a personal grudge. It provides clarity, factual precision, and structure—everything your message lacks. Disregarding untrue or manipulative claims isn’t cherry-picking—it’s self-respect.
- A mental competency hearing, if ever proposed, would be determined by objective evidence, not online trolling. You are not a judge, DA, or evaluator—and this isn’t a psychiatric witch hunt. You threatening confinement like it’s a punchline only reveals your obsession with power, not justice.
- The loss of a public defender can happen for any number of procedural or strategic reasons. It doesn’t mean I’m incapable—it means I’m choosing my path. Tiffany’s opinion isn’t law. Neither is yours. Competence is defined by legal standards—not vendettas disguised as commentary.
- Millions of people—57 or 17—consult family during times of stress. That’s called being human. It doesn’t make them weak. It makes them supported. The fact that you mock someone for seeking support says far more about your worldview than mine.
- If you’re “not here to support justice,” then you’ve already disqualified yourself from any serious legal dialogue. You’ve “found me guilty”? You're not the judge, the jury, or the Constitution. You're just angry I won't let you control the narrative.
I’m not here to be intimidated. I'm here to reclaim what’s mine and design a life free from people who think harassment equals accountability. If you have anything meaningful to contribute, bring legal precedent—not personal attacks.
RE: Todd Daugherty – Case Summary Constitutional Violations and Procedural Misconduct - N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-11-2025
All this AI stuff isn't making you look smarter, it's making you look more retarded.
I know you are learning disabled and such, but you'll never see me using AI because I understand English properly and can express things in my own words.
You had to use AI to answer this simple question
Who at 57 still relies on their father to help them with problems in life? Shouldn't you be a big boy now and take care of that shit yourself. Of course, your father is your legal guardian as proven on the June 24th hearing. Again, 3rd parties can't ask judges questions, only a legal guardian, the defendant themselves or a lawyer can.
Retard Wrote:Asking a question in a public hearing does not confer legal authorit
Again retard. The only people who can ask the judge a question are the defendant themselves, lawyers or LEGAL GUARDIANS.
If your Daddy isn't your legal guardian, he is considered a third party and thus can't ask questions. Just like how I can't show up and ask the judges.
Therefore your father must be your legal guardian.