Stuff from Kiwi Farm

[admin]

BTW I was banned from Kiwi Farms because they didn't want to hear the truth.

POSTED BY ME - 

1. there is no statute of limitations, because this court case ongoing.

You can't file a case until a record has been made. when you file a case, the Courts tend to want to see the record ( ie. what on the record, what the judge decided and so on) Since there this is pending case which has been pretrial for closes to 4 years, the actual case has not actually started.


2. they police don't get qualified immunity because:

The police don't get qualified immunity.  For an officer not to get qualified immunity it has to be shown that 1. they violated a statutory or constitutional right and 2. that right has been well established by the courts. The search warrant was a general warrant, general warrants violated the fourth amendment (a constitutional right) which establishes number 1. The court has established from 1927 all the way to present day, that general warrants are unconstitutional and violate a person's right. So no qualified immunity. 

___________

[admin]

Anonymus Fluhre wrote:

" Computer generated cp is illegal. There was already a case about that retard. Fuck off and die already."

I don't what case they are referring to, but I thinks United States v Williams US Supreme Court 2008. If that is the case they are reading it wrong. US v Williams has to do the "pandering" section of the PROTECT ACT. Williams was pandering material what was and wasn't real child porn as REAL CHILD PORN. it had to do with possession or distributing virtual child porn. If you go online and pander virtual child porn as real child porn you will be arrested (that what the case about)  "The Supreme Court reasoned that there is no First Amendment protection for offers to engage in illegal transactions, and that banning "the collateral speech that introduces such material into the child-pornography distribution network" does not in fact criminalize a "substantial amount of protected speech." 

Some noted info

" The Court further stated that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) would not be construed to punish the solicitation or offering of "virtual" (computer generated/animated) child pornography, thus comporting with the holding of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)." (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is the pandering law, which again is what the case was about)

"In keeping with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), The Court stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,' post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever."

[admin]

The problem is that law is unconstitutional, because if you actually read the law (and I did post it on here) it doesn't distinguish between real child pornography and virtual child porn. As I stated about in the US v Williams case

  "In keeping with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), The Court stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,' post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever."

meaning the US Supreme court is still pushing that virtual child porn IS legal. This state law contradicts the US Supreme Court.

[admin]

Dirty Harry posted:

pedo said:

the image the FBI found which we come to find out was a computer-generated image, not a real child was found after the original charges were dismissed and the warrant was quashed. The warrant was quashed and the charges were dismissed, but the police went ahead and handed the 15 electronic devices over to the FBI. The FBI knew the charges were dropped and that had no warrant at all.

Your timeline doesn't add up so I assume you are just making this up because your lawyer wouldn't be dumb enough to enter a false statement which would make the entire motion to squash mute. Here is why.

I think they have it in their head's up their asses because they believe that the motion to suppress that was posted on here was written by me, when in fact it was not. that was the actual motion to suppress, new evidence was given to us, evidence that was being withheld by the state, and everything in the motion to suppress is based on evidence that was in discovery and from the withheld documents that they state had and not based on opinion or hearsay

pedo said:
April 4th turned computers over to FBI
April 16th Charges dismissed.

So if the charges dismissed Nolle Presqui on April 16, but the police handed over the computers on April 4th, how could they have handed over the computers after the dismissal was issued 2 weeks later? It's because you are just making up shit. Your lawyer isn't stupid enough to submit something that is so easily dismissed.

No because they state and the police were not communicating with each other, that what really cause this mess. The lack of communication between the state attorney office and the local police. THEY DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH EACHOTHER as much as they should, that the real issue. Case in point in 2015 the charges was dismissed against me, by the judge. BUT the state attorney never told the police, this isn't new this shit has been going on for a long time, as long as I've been around. It also the police's fault for not checking in and seeing what happened to the case.

No such thing as "ongoing" when it comes to the Statute of Limitations. An example of that would be say I broke my leg at Walmart in 2004, and it's bothering me in 2024, I can't sue even though the pain is still "ongoing". The date to begin a lawsuit happens at the day of the event. I kept telling you back in 2020 that your statute of limitations for the 2018 stuff was expiring and to go out and hire a lawyer, but you know everything. Too bad.

when I mean "ongoing" I mean an ongoing court case. there is a big difference between getting hurt a Walmart like in your scenario and ongoing court case. as I stated previously you can't file a case until all the records within the courts has been established. Your scenario and this are two different things. Not all cases are the same and not all outcomes are the same. 

The reason they need to establish the records is to see if the case can proceed, if the court has jurisdiction to hear the case, if there was an error of law (if the judge in the original case messed up) and other things. Judge can and do mess up, it up to another judge determine if that is the case was legally heard or there was an error as a matter of law.

Oh, and how can be generated computer porn when they have a date of birth of the victim involved? You even published the DOB here and were just bragging a few days ago that the child was over 18 now.

because that image with the birthdate and age was from the second warrant (a warrant that was unreasonable obtained by the courts) unreasonable obtain because they held onto my 15 computers and waited 686 days before obtaining it. The courts have ruled that anything that is over 31 days is unreasonable, and thus unconstitutional. The image that was first found under the state warrant (which was the first warrant) was computer generated. if you can't understand that they had two warrants (one was a state warrant to seize all the computers and everything on them, and when they rummage through the computers to look for anything and everything, they found a computer-generated image and stopped to get a second warrant, which they waited 686 days to get. THAT THE FUCKING ISSUE!! The police can seize a computer or cellphone to get warrant and wait 1 year 10 months and 5 days to finally get it. if you think then can, you very, very wrong.

[admin]

Anonymus Fluhre wrote

now there's an issue, they had probable cause and suspicion. Not to mention this is quite common with attorney's so don't think this is a hail mary to get you out of prison time or at the very least being put on the sex registry. Judges will often side with the officers when a crime has clearly been done.

Actually, no they didn't have probable cause. their probable cause was based on an anonymous tip that wasn't corroborated by the police. Tips from known informants don't have to be corroborated, while ones that are anonymous do. If the police had did their job and investigate it, and if evidence came up and showed I didn't then they would have probable cause. my IP wasn't never on that site, and the police did no investigation of any kind.

This attorney also doesn't seem to be paying much attention to the case as they referred to the minor multiple times as a male when it's female. She also doesn't understand informants to the FBI. Some easy to digest information on this matter for anyone not retarded like Todd

I already answered that issue look at my post above.  I like how these MORONS think they know it, when they aren't even there or even part of this case, they are just assuming things.

[admin]

The police seized the computers on a warrant that allowed them to seize everything, and it says it on the warrant "any and all computers" and "any and all information and data" making it a general search warrant. Evidence came up and showed that I wasn't on that site and that anyone can post as anyone, and impersonation was considered the status quo on that site. The charges were dropped but instead of returning my computers to me the police handed them over to the FBI to go through them under that GENERAL SEARCH WARRANT. The FBI found a computer-generated image and stopped the search and waited to get a second search warrant, which they applied for 1 year, 10 months and 5 days later (686 days total) Under that warrant they found other images. 1. The first warrant was a general warrant. 2. that general warrant was quashed in 2018 3. the FBI should of never went through those computers and the police or the state should have told them to hand them back. 4. The FBI waited 686 days later after they found a computer-generated image to get a second warrant. the statute of limitations of holding on to an electronic device to get a search warrant is 31 days.

I AM GOING TO SUE THE STATE, THE POLICE AND THE FBI FOR A LOT OF MONEY