+- 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: The Warrant (/showthread.php?tid=516)
Pages:
1
2
The Warrant - admin - 08-24-2025
The warrant was a general warrant because it did not particularize what they were supposed to search for and allowed the seizure of all computers and "any and all files" on those computers. The US Supreme Court had put an end to the wholesale seizure of all files in Riley v California back 2014. In 2015 in United States v Winn, the US District court sided with Winn that the search warrant he had was a general warrant because it allowed the seizure of "any and all files" on his digital device citing Riley.
The warrant was also invalid because it was based on a hunch, not probable cause. The police did not corroborate the tip nor did they do any investigation. Under the US Supreme Court ruling of Gates v Illinois (1985) The US Supreme Court ruled that corroboration and investigation was required when police received an anonymous tip. The Court ruled against the Gates because although the police received an anonymous tip, the police did investigate and did corroborate the tip. In this case Illinois v Daugherty, the police did NOT corroborate the tip, nor did they investigate.
RE: The Warrant - mercury - 08-24-2025
Judge found probable cause. Judge signed search warrant. Immanent threat. You have a previous and a conviction for threats. Get over it.
(08-24-2025, 05:49 PM)admin Wrote: The warrant was also invalid because it was based on a hunch, not probable cause.
Well, you can AI all the answers you want until you find one you agree with but the judge ruled probable cause.
Get the fuck over it.
03/19/2018
SA, DEF PRO SE IN CUSTODY. 2 INFOS TENDERED TO DEFENDANT. STATE AMMENDS DATE ON INFORMATIONS. DEF ADVISED/ADMONISHED OF CHARGES/PENALTIES. PC TO DETAIN FOUND. BOND $250,000 (10%), NO ENTRY ONTO ANY SCHOOL PROPERTY, GPS, 24 HOUR ELECTRONIC HOME CONFINEMENT,
NO FIREARMS. DEF REQUESTS PD. PD GRIGSBY APPTD. 1ST AP W/PD 3/22/18
AT 11:00 A.M.
RE: The Warrant - admin - 08-24-2025
That wasn't AI BITCH I wrote that, nice try though. You are wrong, that nothing to do with the warrant. The issue of the warrant was never brought up in 2018. If I had gotten a copy of the warrant back, then I would have challenged back then. It was based on a hunch. show me where the FBI or the Police did an investigation, they did none. The police's view was "that was threat, that was you name therefore a reasonable person would believe you wrote it." that not investigating. Plus, the fact that they got the information from the Hate and Flame service provider AFTER the warrant was issued (and it showed I was not on that site) proves that they didn't investigate it properly.
RE: The Warrant - admin - 08-24-2025
Every date, every event, every quote in my timeline comes from official records—police reports, court dockets, FBI logs, and state filings. If you think I made it up, then you’re accusing law enforcement of fabricating their own paperwork. I didn’t write the warrant. I didn’t log the evidence. I didn’t drop the charges. They did.
RE: The Warrant - mercury - 08-24-2025
Dick Sucker Wrote:The issue of the warrant was never brought up in 2018.
Well blame yourself and your public defender for that. If you or your public defender didn't ask to see the warrant, that's too bad and your error
Dick Sucker Wrote:It was based on a hunch.
It was based on probable cause from the judge.
Quote:show me where the FBI or the Police did an investigation
They did after probable cause was found. you lying to the cops and posting threats on Twitter didn't help you either. Once you lie to the cops, anything you say can be disregarded, including in court.
Dick Sucker Wrote:Plus, the fact that they got the information from the Hate and Flame service provider AFTER the warrant was issued
Only what was known at the time matters... "They discovered later" is projecting into the future and thus no factor in the probable cause the judge found on March 19th. Say if Apocales would have shown up and admitted we got him on say March 30th, that still doesn't mean the probable cause was wrong because it wasn't known at the time. So you can't use "future events", only what was presented on March 19, 2018....
Sick Sucker Wrote:I didn’t drop the charges. They did.
It was Nolle Presqui and the judge made it clear to you that the investigation could continue and you could be charged again. You told the judge that you understood this and agreed to it in full. Plus the fact they investigated and did Nolle Presqui the charge relieves them means they did their job properly and investigated.
I can't help it if you didn't hire a real lawyer, that's on you.
So you no basis on a lawsuit for many many reasons...
Oh, and answer this question directly, otherwise we go back to posting dick pics
How come you didn't read that letter you wrote and rewrote and rewrote to the judge contesting your public defender from withdrawing from the case, when you had a chance to do so?
Any sperging away from that question is you giving me consent to post dick pics again.
RE: The Warrant - admin - 08-25-2025
Quote:It was Nolle Presqui and the judge made it clear to you that the investigation could continue and you could be charged again. You told the judge that you understood this and agreed to it in full. Plus the fact they investigated and did Nolle Presqui the charge relieves them means they did their job properly and investigated.
No, it wasn't:
04/16/2018 Motion to Dismiss filed by the State. Order entered and filed. Case dismissed.
RE: The Warrant - admin - 08-25-2025
Quote:Blame yourself for not asking to see the warrant
This isn't true, the burden isn’t on the defendant to request the warrant—it’s on the state to ensure its valid. And the warrant was later quashed, proving it was flawed.
Quote:It was based on probable cause from the judge.
Also not true, the judge made a preliminary finding at arraignment, not a final ruling. That probable cause was later undermined by the website confirmation I didn’t make the post, witnesses reporting threats continued while I was in jailed.
Quote:You lied to the cops and posted threats on Twitter.
There is no evidence of threats or lying. A vague comment on twitter cannot be considered a threat; there is such thing hyperbole.
Quote:Only what was known at the time matters.
Not true, future exculpatory evidence can retroactively invalidate probable cause, especially if the original affidavit omitted key facts (Franks v. Delaware). When they got the documents from the hate and Flame website on March 30th that showed I was not on that site, they lost probable cause.
RE: The Warrant - mercury - 08-25-2025
(08-25-2025, 12:10 AM)admin Wrote:Quote:It was Nolle Presqui and the judge made it clear to you that the investigation could continue and you could be charged again. You told the judge that you understood this and agreed to it in full. Plus the fact they investigated and did Nolle Presqui the charge relieves them means they did their job properly and investigated.
No, it wasn't:
04/16/2018 Motion to Dismiss filed by the State. Order entered and filed. Case dismissed.
And of course, the part the schizo doesn't mention
04/16/2018
SA, DEF IN CUSTODY W/PD GRIGSBY. STATES MOTION TO DISMISS W/LEAVE TO REINSTATE GRANTED W/OUT OBJECTION. DEFENDANT ADVISED STATE RETAINS RIGHT TO RE-FILE AS INVESTIGATION CONTINUES. NFS.
1. It is on the defendant to ask for a copy. I can't help it if you or your parents didn't.
2. Again, court records says Probable cause for both the 2018 and 2022... That is not disputable.
3. You lied to the cops, changed your story, changed your timeline, and lied about not knowing anything about school threats when your own Twitter posting said otherwise. You also threatened to show up at Twitter headquarters and the FBI wouldn't save them. That''s a threat but Twitter decided not to press charges. But doesn't matter, judge at the time declared it probable cause.
4. And no, future evidence can not retroactively change the "probable cause" for the date it was issued, it's simply a new ruling that probable cause is no longer in effect but no error in the part of the prosecution as the judge declared it to be probable. As the court records say, the investigation could continue and you even admitted as such endlessly on KiwiFarms and your own forums. It's proof that you have changed your story.
5. And on top of that, the judge signed the search warrant, and it's the judges job to review to warrant to make sure it's valid... Since the judge signed it, if there is a constitutional issue, that's on the judge. But no matter, the Statute of Limitations as long expired for you to take any action.
6. AAgain, nd the statute of limitations has long expired, for example, the City of Taylorville even if you are completely correct has no burden to meet because the action happened in 2018. The State can't extend their liability as they are not the same entity and a different party. Same with the FBI, they have no action since 2020. But no worries, you are just ranting on the internet and you will never file any lawsuit.
RE: The Warrant - admin - 08-25-2025
Your a fucking moron who doesn't know what the fuck is going on. Your reading shit off of judici.com which isn't telling you everything. Crawl back under your fucking rock
RE: The Warrant - admin - 08-25-2025
Quote:Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Reinstate
Dismissal with leave to reinstate is still a dismissal. The state didn’t refile. The warrant was quashed. The case collapsed
Quote:Probable cause for both 2018 and 2022 is not disputable.
Probable cause is not sacred—it’s subject to challenge. And in my case, it didn’t survive scrutiny.
Quote:You lied to the cops… Twitter threats… FBI wouldn’t save them.
I didn’t lie.
Quote:Future evidence can’t retroactively change probable cause.
Franks v. Delaware exists for a reason. When new evidence shows the warrant was based on lies or omissions, probable cause collapses.
Quote:Judge signed the warrant, so it’s valid.
Judges aren’t infallible. If the affidavit was misleading, the signature doesn’t save it.
Quote:Statute of limitations has expired.
The statute of limitations hasn’t expired—and even if it had, the damage continues.
Let’s be clear, the case was dismissed, the warrant was quashed, the FBI declined to prosecute, the website confirmed I didn’t make the post. You can twist docket language all you want, but the facts don’t bend.
As for your threats and harassment—I’ve archived everything. And unlike you, I don’t need to lie to win. I just need to keep telling the truth.