A reminder of the facts regarding the case: - Printable Version +- 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: A reminder of the facts regarding the case: (/showthread.php?tid=451)

A reminder of the facts regarding the case: - admin - 07-12-2025 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 RE: A reminder of the facts regarding the case: - N9OGL REPEAT BOT - 07-12-2025 The DA says otherwise. How many times are you going to repeat this? But this is the real fact of the case. RE: A reminder of the facts regarding the case: - admin - 07-12-2025 that was from the state police NOT the FBI. According to the FBI it was a computer-generated image. How it went from being computer generated to being a real child is the real question. It also should be noted that the FBI agent who was originally in contact with SA Prevatte from homeland security - Special Agent Anthony Wright lied to the federal judge to obtain the second warrant He failed to tell the judge that the charges were dismissed because they didn't have probable cause, and that the search warrant had been quashed. He also failed to tell the judge that Special Agent O'Sullivan from the FBI Forensic lab identified the image as a computer-generated image. Where the real image came from, I do not know. If this was a federal case, it would have been thrown out because not only what I mentioned above but because of 18 USC 2252© which states: It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant— (1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and The federal government doesn't go after someone because of one image. You have to have more than three images before they go after you. You have more than three then you are considered a collector. In my case there was only ONE image. the rest was computer generated which is not only legal but constitutionally protected speech (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition US Supreme Court 2002) People v Alexander 2003 Illinois Supreme Court) (United States v Williams 2008 US Supreme Court) RE: A reminder of the facts regarding the case: - admin - 07-12-2025 LET ME BREAK DOWN FOR YOU POLICE GET WARRANT THE CHARGES ARE DISMISSED AND THE WARRANT IS QUASHED SPECIAL AGENT O'SULLIVAN SEARCHES THE COMPUTERS A WEEK AFTER CHARGES WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE NO PROBABLE CAUSE AND THE WARRANT WAS QUASHED. IT WAS THEN (A WEEK LATER) THAT HE FOUND A COMPUTER-GENERATED IMAGE. O'SULLIVAN NOTIFIES SPECIAL AGENT WRIGHT AND STOPS TO GET A SECOND WARRANT WRIGHT GETS A SECOND WARRANT CLAIMING THEY (THE FBI) HAD THE COMPUTERS UNDER A VALID WARRANT (WHICH WAS NOT TRUE) AND THE IMAGE, WHICH WAS A COMPUTER-GENERATED IMAGE OF A LITTLE BOY, SOMEHOW TURNED INTO BE A REAL IMAGE OF A LITTLE GIRL. EITHER WRIGHT HAD THE WRONG CASE OR HE INSERTED THAT IMAGE INTO IT CLAIMING IT WAS FOUND ON THE COMPUTER.