That video of the 2 teens who claimed "we got em Apoc"

[admin]

 O'Sullivan stated in his report that he found a computer-generated image,

No he didn't mother fucker....   He said the image was real, he's been a forensic examiner for ten years and the image was someone from the age from 3 to 5 with a penis in their mouth...  Not only did he say that, but the Department of Homeland Security found the name of the victim, the mother's name, and the perps name who got convicted on that image.

Remember, you uploaded the documents yourself...... And I got them saved.

So you can stop the lying... Your lawyer isn't buying it nor did she mention it in the Motion to Dismiss

So when this goes to trial, and it will go to trial because she knows the judge is going to reject it, you're going to prison....

And I'll be laughing...

---

If the motion to dismiss get denied they will automatically appeal it right, then and there

You can't and you are not legally allowed to say a word because you not an officer of the court, she is... Unless of course you fire her, which the judge will probably require you to have an psychiatric exam to make sure you are competent enough to representative yourself. Since your parents are your legal guardians, they can decide that for you also.

---

And finally, there is no way you would pass the psychiatric exam as you are documented retarded with reading, writing, speaking, and learning disabilities, all the way back to grade school... Unless of course your parents want to put up another 5 figures to hire you private council, who will immediately make you stop posting online as they CAN dismiss you as a client for not following instructions.

Basically, you're fucked...

---

And who knows, maybe you're be arrested for AI child porn before all that happens.....

Basically, you're fucked.

Actually, yeah, he did. The image was a computer-generated image, The image from homeland security was an image they found with the second warrant (federal warrant) which in valid for two reasons - 1. they waited too long to get the second warrant. When The police or FBI has a digital device, they must obtain a warrant quicky because there is a time limit on it. (and the FEDERAL COURTS HAS STATED THERE IS TIME LIMIT ON HOW LONG THEY CAN HOLD ONTO A DEVICE AND HOW LONG THEY CAN GET A WARRANT) 2. The second warrant relied on the first warrant which has a lot of issue including lack of probable cause by no corroborating the anonymous person tip, the fact it doesn't state what they are looking for or the crime, the allowing them to completely rummage through 15 digital devices. Show clearly that it is a general warrant. 

As for not mention that it was computer generated yeah she did:

Page 6:

"On April 23, 2018, a week after the warrant had been quashed and therefore was no longer valid, O'Sullivan began to search the device. See CART Examination Notes 343 G-SI-2610873 pg. 3 (Exhibit K). During that warrantless search, O'Sullivan found what he noted what appeared to be a computer-generated image of a minor child with an adult male penis in his mouth. "

still on Page 6:

" The affidavit then stated that "Examiner William O'Sullivan found suspected child pornography on the black and blue Seagate desktop hard drive bearing serial number NA7DWTK4..." specifically, a "visual depiction of a three to five-year-old with an adult male's penis in his mouth." Id. at ¶9. The affidavit did not explain that O'Sullivan recognized it to be a computer-generated image.

Page 18

"Then, on April 23, 2018, a week after the warrant had been quashed, O'Sullivan began to search the devices. During that warrantless search O'Sullivan found what he noted what appeared to be a computer-generated image of a minor child with an adult male penis in his mouth."

So yeah, she did mention it in the Motion to Dismiss.

[NO TOAD]

NO TOAD. You can stop the lying.

Because it wasn't virtual. That's why he didn't say it.    This is exactly what he said, thanks to you releasing confidential discovery that isn't part of the court record.  He also found 1,000s of virtual and AI child pornography on your computer..

So have the state, FBI, and Homeland Security all saying it was real child pornography. No one is lying but you.

---

Oh, and notice it wasn't a general warrant, they were looking for only mass shooting threat evidence and saw the child porn in the open, which is legal.

[admin]

No that was wrong, that is from the second warrant that the FBI agent Anthony Wright lied on. In fact, it even pointed out in our motion to dismiss that he LIED on the Second search warrant affidavit. He is going to be SUED too. BTW The state and Homeland Security says it's a little girl, not boy.

[NO TOAD]

I'M WATCHING THE VIDEO NOW.  TOO BAD YOU NEVER WILL UNTIL YOU ARE OUT OF PRISON... THEN I'LL SHOW IT TO YOU