The real truth

[admin]

1. A search warrant was issued to investigate an alleged threat against a school.
   
2. That warrant was a general warrant—it failed to specify what evidence was being sought and did not establish any connection between the seized computers and the alleged crime.
   
3. The warrant was quashed by court order on April 16, 2018, rendering it legally void.
   
4. Despite this, the FBI searched the computers on April 23, 2018, using a warrant that was no longer valid, and allegedly discovered one computer-generated image.
   

I am now being criminally charged based on an image found a full week after the warrant was quashed. This is not just improper—it’s unprecedented. There are no known cases in U.S. legal history where evidence obtained under a quashed warrant has been used to prosecute someone. It violates the Fourth Amendment and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

[admin]

COME ON BITCHES...PROVE MY ASS WRONG, YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY WIN.

[admin]

If you're not going to participate in the discussion I will delete your shit.

[admin]

Again, if you're not going to contribute to the discussion then don't post. asinine comments will be deleted, and you will be banned

[Big Fucking Deal]

You're an endless loop saying the same stuff endlessly... It's already been refuted.

WHINE TOAD WHINE. THERE IS NOTHING YOU'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT.

[admin]

No it hasn't. I will tell you to tell me, but you've been banned

[admin]

The claim that I consented to the search is categorically false. There is no record—written, verbal, or implied—of me ever consenting to the search of my devices. Consent must be explicit and documented; it cannot be inferred from judicial actions or investigative momentum. The judge’s decision to allow the investigation to continue does not equate to personal consent.
Moreover, that’s not even the State’s argument. The State maintains that the original 2018 search warrant was never quashed and remains valid to this day. They claim it has no expiration, which—if true—would mean they could return at any time and seize additional devices under that same warrant. That’s not just unconstitutional—it’s a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

[admin]

I'm still waiting, BTW the only AI that was done on that message was correcting the grammar and spelling. The whole text was written by me.

[GET THE FUCK OVER IT]

100% AI written.

You consented and you said you consented on KiwiFarms and said they had until March 16,2021 or else would you ask for them back. You agreed to let them have it for 90 days, then a year, then 3 years by your own admission. Of course, your father also consented and that's really the only consent that matters and he freely showed the police where they are located and never asked to see the search warrant. Thus, he consented.

Only the arrest warrant was quashed, as the state correctly says.

Of course, even when that date passed, you never asked for them back.

Good luck with Mr Wykoff

[admin]

Let’s correct the record—your claims are factually and legally inaccurate.

1. My father did not consent, nor did he “show them where they were.”
   The police conducted a search of the house. There was no voluntary guidance, no waiver of rights, and no informed consent. The idea that his passive presence or lack of objection constitutes valid consent is legally baseless. Consent must be knowing, voluntary, and explicit—none of which occurred.
   
2. We did ask for the property back.
   Multiple requests were made, both formally and informally. The government’s continued retention of the property—despite the quashing of the warrant—is a violation of due process and property rights. The burden is not on me to endlessly demand what was unlawfully taken; it’s on the State to return it once the legal basis evaporates.
   
3. The warrant was quashed—full stop.
   The April 16, 2018, court order invalidated the search warrant. The FBI’s subsequent search on April 23, 2018, was conducted under a void instrument. That’s not just improper—it’s unconstitutional. The State’s attempt to distinguish between the arrest and search warrants is a deliberate misrepresentation of the record.
   
4. Consent on KiwiFarms? That’s laughable.
   Public commentary on a forum—years after the fact—is not legal consent. It’s not binding, not contemporaneous, and not directed to law enforcement. Trying to twist forum posts into retroactive authorization is legally absurd and ethically dishonest.
   
5. Mr. Wykoff is not just “good luck”—he’s a constitutional firewall.
   His affiliation with the NACDL and the Fourth Amendment Center means this case is being reviewed through a national lens. The State’s misconduct, misrepresentation, and unlawful search will not go unchecked.