Posts: 1,078
Threads: 185
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
11 hours ago
(This post was last modified: 10 hours ago by admin.)
Cost doesn't mean shit when it comes to a franks hearing. a frank hearing is required when "defendant makes a preliminary showing that the affidavit contains false statements." it both a legal and constitutional remedy.
BELIEVE ME YOU FUCKING COCK SUCKER....I AM GOING TO DESTROY THIS FUCKING TOWN FOR WHAT THEY DID TO ME...YOU HEAR ME PIECE OF SHIT. I AM GOING TO SUE THE FUCK OUT OF THEM, THIS SHIT HOLE STATE AND THEIR ASS LICKING BUDDIES AT THE FBI...YOU GOT ME YOU FUCKING PIECE OF HUMAN FUCKING WASTE.
Posts: 1,078
Threads: 185
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
I REALLY SUGGEST YOU FUCKING PIECE OF FUCKING PIECE OF HUMAN WASTE THAT YOU DO SOME RESEARCH ON FRANKS HEARING. BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR FUCKING MOUTH
GO BACK TO SUCKING MCWARDS COCK YOU FUCKING FAGGOT MOTHERFUCKER!!
Posts: 1,078
Threads: 185
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
YOU CAN TELL THAT PIECE OF SHIT MCWARD THAT I AM SUING THE CITY, AND STATE AND FBI FOR 50 MILLION DOLLARS...TELL HIM WHILE YOU'RE SUCKING ON HIS LITTLE KNOB.
Posts: 1,078
Threads: 185
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
EAT SHIT YOU FUCKIKNG PIECE OF FUCKING CRAP...I HOPE ROT IN FUCKING HELL WHEN YOU FUCKING DIE..
YOUR WRONG, FRANKS HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED WHEN "defendant makes a preliminary showing that the affidavit contains false statements." LEARN THE LAW DICKSUCKER!
Posts: 1,078
Threads: 185
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
10 hours ago
(This post was last modified: 10 hours ago by admin.)
A Franks hearing is not a constitutional requirement in and of itself, but it is a constitutional remedy.
This means that while the Constitution doesn't say "a defendant must have a Franks hearing," the hearing itself is a procedure designed to protect a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring that warrants be supported by probable cause and a sworn affidavit. If a police officer knowingly or recklessly lies or omits critical information in that affidavit, they are violating the spirit and intent of the Fourth Amendment.
The Franks hearing is the court-created mechanism for a defendant to challenge that alleged misconduct. If the defendant can prove the officer acted improperly, the warrant is invalidated, and any evidence seized is suppressed. Without this remedy, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement would be meaningless because officers could simply lie in affidavits without consequence.
Posts: 5
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2025
Reputation:
0
You can get all pissed off but that lawyer will not work a Franks Hearing for free. It goes well beyond the $12,500 of either of three things. However, Tiffany never requested a Franks Hearing by the way, it was a Motion to Dismiss hearing. A Franks Hearing is very focused and her Motion to Dimisss wasn't. I know you are too stupid to tell the difference.
1. Your parents will have to pay for the additional cost out of pocket
2. You won't get a Franks Hearing
3. If you insist on a Franks Hearing and you can't pay for it, your lawyer will withdraw as council, charge you for the time he spent.
Oh, by the way, your new lawyer will withdraw that motion to dismiss in order to work on it himself.
Posts: 1,078
Threads: 185
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
No, it was motion to suppress. and in that motion to suppress it asks for a franks hearing.
Posts: 5
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2025
The District Attorney, FBI and City of Taylorville are still waiting for that certified letter you claimed you were sending on July 4th..
So why did you chicken out? I know, it's a coping mechanism for you that makes you feel better, but you actually do nothing. At age 57, you still have to hide behind your parents while they do everything for you. Jeremy doesn't have that problem, but he is normal.
This is you in real life