1. I never threatened a school. The post in question was made on a site known for impersonation, and it was posted under my name while I was not online.
   • The site did not require login credentials, and
     
   • Posts continued in my name while I was incarcerated, which law enforcement confirmed.
     
   • The site’s host later confirmed I never accessed the platform.
     
2. Imminent threat requires immediacy and credibility.
   • The Supreme Court has ruled that speech must pose a real and immediate danger to justify bypassing investigation (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).
     
   • In my case, the police acted on an anonymous tip that was never corroborated.
     
   • They arrested me without verifying the source, investigating the claim, or linking the threat to me in any meaningful way.
     
3. Photographs from 2008 do not establish present-day access to firearms.
   • The image used was stolen from a blog that had been offline for a decade.
     
   • I did not possess a valid FOID card, and no weapons were found during the search.
     
   • Using an old photo as justification for arrest is not probable cause—it’s prejudice.
     

Retard Wrote:The Supreme Court has ruled that speech must pose a real and immediate danger to justify bypassing investigation

1. I did not access the site.
   • The website in question does not require login credentials, and
     
   • Posts continued in my name while I was incarcerated, which the sheriff’s office confirmed.
     
   • The site’s host and legal counsel later verified that I never accessed the platform.
     
2. My family’s IP logs were never linked to any posts.
   • Accessing a public website is not illegal, nor does it prove authorship.
     
   • No evidence has ever shown that my family posted anything—only that they may have viewed the site, likely out of concern.
     
3. The search warrant was not legal.
   • It was issued five days after the alleged threat, without corroboration of the tip.
     
   • It was a general warrant, authorizing the seizure of “any and all computers” and data—violating the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.
     
   • The warrant was later quashed, and the charges were dropped.
     

• You made a claim that I lied, which is demonstrably false.
  
• You inserted yourself into an active criminal case in which you have no legal standing.
  
• You attempted to influence my representation by spreading misinformation.
  

• Fourth Amendment: Illegal search and seizure, general warrant, post-quash search
  
• Sixth Amendment: Denial of effective counsel, forced private representation
  
• Fourteenth Amendment: Due process violations, suppression delays
  
• Brady v. Maryland: Withholding exculpatory evidence
  

• 7+ years of litigation, harassment, and reputational damage
  
• Wrongful arrest, incarceration, and public defamation
  
• Loss of employment, income, and stability
  
• Emotional distress, mental anguish, and social isolation
  

• FBI misrepresentation to a federal judge
  
• State re-arrest based on a quashed warrant
  
• Discovery obstruction and malicious interference
  
• Public defender withdrawal triggered by third-party harassment
  

Baby Manlet Wrote:Like I said 50 million dollars MOTHERFUCKER!!! THOSE FUCKIGN COCKSUCKER AT THE STAT OF ILLINOIS, TAYLORVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FBI ARE GOING TO WISH THEY NEVER HEARD OF MY FUCKING NAME. BELIEVE ME BITCH THIS IS GOING HAPPEN!!