Here some notes from some emails I wrote

[admin]

Here some notes from some emails I wrote, the persons they were sent too were left out. This is basically what I said:


Here’s the bottom line: this entire case hinges on a single image that was obtained through an illegal search.

In 2018, both the State and the police determined they no longer had probable cause—the original charges were dropped, and the warrant was quashed. At that point, my computers should have been returned to me. Instead, law enforcement ignored that legal conclusion and, still convinced I had made the threat, handed the devices over to the FBI days after probable cause had already collapsed.

That handoff—and the subsequent search—was unconstitutional. This is a case built on an unlawful search and seizure, carried out without a valid warrant or legal basis.

******

Following up on my previous messages, I want to express—in no uncertain terms—the core issues that continue to undermine the integrity of this case:

1. It has taken over four years to obtain a Franks hearing. That kind of delay is not only unjustified, it’s unprecedented. A Franks hearing is narrowly focused and procedural—it does not take years to schedule unless someone is actively working to obstruct it.

2. The motion to withdraw came just one week before we were finally set to have that hearing. That timing alone raises serious red flags. After waiting four years, a sudden disruption right before the hearing is not just suspect—it appears deliberate.

3. It’s even more troubling when you consider that the motion to suppress was filed in September 2024—and the State still hasn't responded. Nearly a year of silence from the prosecution on a constitutional challenge is unconscionable.

4. This pattern of delay has caused considerable strain and frustration. To be candid, the only reason I started my public forum in the first place was to give voice to that frustration and to draw attention to the court's unwillingness to move on a hearing that should have been resolved years ago.

5. These delays are not benign. They have deprived me of a fair and timely process. The courts have allowed this case to fester in limbo, while critical facts—such as the invalidity of the original warrant and the State's suppression of exculpatory evidence—go unaddressed.

6. All of this contributes to a broader picture of systemic indifference and potential interference. From third parties communicating with the Public Defender’s office and external actors contacting civil rights attorneys on my behalf, to misrepresentations made to the court about the origin of the evidence—all of it points to a process badly in need of course correction.

I hope this adds clarity to my concerns. Let me know if you need anything from me before the 23rd.

******

First, the document in question—a motion to dismiss—was not written by me. It was prepared and filed by my attorney. Despite impressions to the contrary, I did not author that motion.

Second, the CSAM allegation is based on a computer-generated image, which is not illegal under federal law or Illinois state law. That distinction matters, and it undermines the basis for the search.

Third, the search itself was conducted without a valid warrant. Even if the original warrant had not been quashed, it was constitutionally flawed from the start: it was a general warrant issued by the state in 2018 that failed to describe with particularity what digital content was to be seized. Law enforcement seized all data from 15 devices, a sweeping action that violated established constitutional protections.

This kind of broad, indiscriminate digital search was precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court condemned in Riley v. California (2014). In that decision, the Court made clear that modern digital devices cannot be subject to blanket searches—doing so without clear judicial authorization is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I appreciate the suggestion that court delays may be due to judicial utility or the prioritization of other matters—but respectfully, after over four years of inaction on a Franks hearing, that explanation feels insufficient. We're not talking about a crowded docket stretching timelines by months—this is a constitutional challenge that's been on ice for years, despite clear and compelling Fourth Amendment concerns.

As for the idea that this isn’t “active obstruction,” I understand why it might seem unlikely. But consider this: we’ve seen sudden motions to withdraw right before scheduled hearings, prosecutorial silence on key filings like the motion to suppress (filed back in September 2024) and known third parties disseminating misinformation that has influenced both counsel and potentially the court. When that pattern emerges alongside missed deadlines, quashed warrants, and Brady violations—it’s no longer a theory. It’s a structure.

So yes, maybe it's not XXXXX or XXXXX pulling strings directly. But the deeper concern isn't necessarily about conspiracy—it's about systemic indifference that allows manipulation, misinformation, and misconduct to go unchecked.

If that’s not obstruction in effect, I don’t know what is


The issue of being "blown off" has already been resolved. In an email, she confirmed that most of the questions I had submitted were already part of her planned examination for the suppression hearing. Those questions were intended for witnesses as part of the motion to suppress, and there was no hostile exchange between us.

The claim of “irreconcilable differences” originated from an email that was actually sent to her—not by me, but by Dirty Harry. He even acknowledged on my website that he sent it. She confirmed to me personally that a series of messages from him were the catalyst for this situation.

Absolutely—it's true that the system often wears people down, and many take pleas not because they're guilty, but because they can't endure the grind. That’s a hard, unfortunate reality.

But what I’m describing isn’t just bureaucratic drag or prosecutorial indifference. It’s a documented pattern:

A warrant that was quashed.

A Franks hearing delayed for over four years.

Third-party interference with defense counsel and potential witnesses.

Suppression motions ignored.

Disclosures withheld in violation of Brady v. Maryland.

When you stack all of that together—not just the slowness, but the timing, the outside meddling, and the procedural irregularities—it's not just frustrating. It begins to look like targeted obstruction, or at minimum, a system being manipulated by people outside it for personal reasons.

So, while I understand the hesitation to label something a conspiracy, this isn’t a belief built on paranoia—it’s a conclusion drawn from patterns, documents, and missed constitutional obligations.

I’m not asking anyone to believe in smoke where there’s no fire. I’m just asking them to recognize there’s a building burning down and the sprinklers haven’t even turned on.

Thanks for the acknowledgment on the frustration—that part’s real. But I need to respond directly to this idea that my using my website or forum somehow invalidates my position or hands "ammunition" to anyone.

Let’s be clear: transparency isn’t the problem—misuse of that transparency by third parties is. I used my site and platform to document procedural delays, challenge legal irregularities, and speak openly about a process that had stalled for years. That’s not performative—it’s defensive. It’s also my First Amendment right.

Now, if people from Kiwi Farms or elsewhere twisted that information for harassment or character attacks, that’s on them—not on me for refusing to stay silent. Silence benefits institutions hoping you’ll break under pressure. I chose not to let that happen.

Could I have handled disclosure differently? Possibly. But when you're boxed out of court proceedings and legal remedies stall, sometimes putting the facts in the sunlight is the only leverage you’ve got.

So, if I'm being criticized for not going quietly? I'll wear that. But I won’t apologize for refusing to disappear.


That’s a fair question—and one that deserves a clear answer. What I believe is being "suppressed" isn’t just evidence; it’s accountability and due process.

We filed a motion to suppress back in September 2024. As of now—almost a year later—the State still hasn’t filed a response, let alone set a hearing date. That’s not just delay. That’s procedural neglect.

What’s being suppressed is:

The opportunity to examine the validity of a quashed warrant

The chance to challenge an overbroad digital search that gathered everything from 15 devices

The exposure of how CSAM allegations arose from evidence acquired after probable cause had already collapsed

The discussion around third-party interference that may have influenced legal counsel and shaped court perception

So yes, a formal evidentiary hearing hasn’t occurred—but suppression isn’t always about the moment in court. It’s about how long the road to that courtroom is conveniently stretched by one side while constitutional questions sit in limbo.

Delay is suppression—when it's used to outwait the truth.

Let me be clear—my frustration isn’t about the concept of being investigated. It’s about how that investigation was handled, what was omitted, and how key decisions were shaped by external influence and outdated assumptions.

There is evidence that third parties, specifically Dirty Tony, interfered with my defense. The public defender herself told me directly and in person that communications from him impacted her perception of the case. He even posted online that he sent those emails. That kind of external meddling—especially from someone openly antagonistic—is not harmless commentary. It’s interference.

As for “misrepresentations,” I’m referring to claims made to the court and defense that the materials cited in my motion to suppress originated from me or my family. That’s false. Every fact in that motion is sourced from official files—the city police, the state, and the FBI—including discovery the prosecution initially withheld in violation of Brady v. Maryland.

Now, regarding the origins of this case: yes, the initial accusation involved a school threat—and when it was confirmed I wasn’t the poster, that matter was dropped. The problem is, the State kept going anyway. The city police handed the computers over to the FBI because they (the city police) didn’t have the ability to investigate Internet crimes. They (the FBI) didn’t get a new warrant for two years. They searched anyway. The seizure of every file from 15 devices wasn’t specific or timely. It was a general warrant, if it can be called one at all.

The “Mdew” allegation emerged after the second warrant, supposedly prompted by an anime image. But even that timeline is murky—and the image in question was likely computer-generated, which is legal under both federal and Illinois law.

This isn’t about denying scrutiny. It’s about demanding that scrutiny be constitutional, fact-based, and free from personal bias or third-party manipulation. The Franks hearing isn’t about the image, it’s about the legality of the search warrant. Because if the warrants are invalid then the case falls apart.

That’s a fair point—and ironically, it circles right back to the very heart of what the Franks hearing is about: how law enforcement got inside those devices in the first place, why they were searching, and under what authority. The CSAM allegation is the end of the trail—not the beginning.

My focus has always been the legality of the process—not the media frenzy that trails behind it. This all began with a warrant tied to a school threat I provably had nothing to do with. When that narrative fell apart, what should have happened is exactly what the Constitution demands: stop the search, return the property, and correct the record.

Instead, we got silence, delays, a quashed warrant, and nearly two years before the FBI got a second one—based on what? An anime-style image that, by legal standards, doesn't even qualify as contraband. That jump—from vague suspicion to sweeping search—is where the rights violations stack up, and that’s why the timeline, the data trail, and the cross-agency handling all matter.

And no—I haven’t lost the plot. I’m just refusing to ignore the opening chapters because the ending is messy. Due process applies from page one. That’s what this hearing is about. That’s where my attention is.

[WHINE BABY MAN WHINE]

[admin]

Then don't come here. I'm not going to keep quiet because of you.

[WHINE BABY MAN WHINE]

[admin]

No—I’m not. This case is fundamentally built on an unconstitutional search and seizure.

The warrant used by law enforcement was a general warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, because it failed to particularize what was to be searched for. Instead, it broadly authorized the seizure of my devices and “any and all files” within them—without limitation.

But the law is clear. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), that “the wholesale seizure of every piece of data on a digital device is unconstitutional”. Similarly, in United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2013), the court emphasized that digital searches must be narrowly constrained because of the immense volume of private data stored on modern devices. Other rulings like United States v. Ganias (2014), United States v. Winn (2015), and United States v. Morton (2021) reinforce this principle: law enforcement cannot seize or examine all digital content unless they have probable cause for each category of data.

So let’s be clear: this warrant wasn’t just procedurally flawed—it was structurally unconstitutional.

Furthermore, I requested a Franks hearing years ago, having made the required “substantial preliminary showing” that the affidavit used to obtain the warrant contained false statements or material omissions. It took nearly four years to even reach a scheduled hearing—and then, just days before it was set to occur, my attorney withdrew. That withdrawal wasn’t coincidental. It occurred under suspicious circumstances involving outside interference and communications from third parties, including someone who had a documented history of undermining my defense. This not only denied me the opportunity to challenge the warrant—it constituted a violation of my right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

As for the bail order, it too was constitutionally flawed. Bail is supposed to be based on probable cause, and the court must weigh the totality of the circumstances (Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)). Yet in my case, the State’s narrative was both incomplete and misleading. They told the court that I had been arrested in 2018 for allegedly making a threat, that my computers had been seized, and that the FBI had discovered an image on those devices. What they left out was critical:

That the original state charges were dismissed in April 2018 due to a lack of probable cause;

That the original warrant was quashed—and therefore the devices should have been returned;

That the image in question was found after the warrant had been quashed, meaning the search was unauthorized and constitutionally defective;

That the FBI waited nearly two years to obtain a second warrant, with no legal justification for that delay;

And that the federal government declined to prosecute, returning the matter to Illinois.

The courts have consistently held that delays in obtaining a warrant beyond 31 days are presumptively unreasonable, absent exigent circumstances (see United States v. Pratt, 915 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2019), among others). In this case, two years lapsed before new action was taken—a delay that undermines the validity of any subsequent search.

The bottom line is this: the State built its probable cause argument on a selectively crafted narrative that excluded exculpatory facts and procedural defects. That is not justice—it’s manipulation. And the bail conditions imposed as a result are tainted by that misrepresentation.

I respectfully assert that this entire case rests on constitutional violations that cannot be ignored or cured. The warrant was invalid. The search was unlawful. The Franks hearing was undermined. And the bail order rests on flawed and misleading information.

This is not how due process works.

And it’s not how justice is supposed to look.