New

[QUESTION]

1. You made an imminent threat to shoot up a school with a photo of you holding a gun. Police and FBI have the right to act immediately.

2. You were making threats on twitter up to the time of your arrest (as pointed out in the police interview).

3. You were convicted of making threats to blow up your local cable company with a pipe bomb with your signed confession.

4. The FBI had a rather lengthy file on you regarding threats including putting bounties on ham radio operators and threatening various officials like Mr Hollingsworth and Lisa Madagan among others..

5. You were upset that your aunt died

6. The FBI on a Saturday drove down to Taylorville

7. You lied during your police interrogation several times and had to change your timeline and other details

[admin]

1. You made an imminent threat to shoot up a school with a photo of you holding a gun. Police and FBI have the right to act immediately.

Nope because my IP address was not attached to that threat, and the police did not corroborate the tip (which is required)
they need more than a name, callsign, and image ALL publicly available information

2. You were making threats on twitter up to the time of your arrest (as pointed out in the police interview).

Nope no threat, The US Supreme court has limited what a threat is, that was vague statement, which could have many meanings and as the US Supreme court has stated A threat must be based on a selective standard with a mens rea. A reasonable standard which is what YOU are using cannot be used for determining threats.

3. You were convicted of making threats to blow up your local cable company with a pipe bomb with your signed confession.

actually, I was charged under an Illinois law for harassment (Which BTW is no longer valid). threats and harassment are two separate things. Again, threats must be based on a selective standard with a men rea. While harassment is based on a different standard. you seem to what to put those two into the same category, when they are not. In fact, threats and harassment are under two different sets of law in Illinois, they are not under the law. Like I said the law I was charged under was repealed in 2012.

4. The FBI had a rather lengthy file on you regarding threats including putting bounties on ham radio operators and threatening various officials like Mr Hollingsworth and Lisa Madagan among others..

Actually, No they don't I seen and got a copy of the FBI records (they were part of discovery).

5. You were upset that your aunt died

Actually no, it was great aunt, and we weren't close. In fact, I was only going to attend the luncheon after the funeral, since I dislike funeral homes

6. The FBI on a Saturday drove down to Taylorville

And?? they did come down the Saturday after the threat was made (the threat was on Friday)

7. You lied during your police interrogation several times and had to change your timeline and other details

In what way?

[admin]

Probable cause or reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on an anonymous tip that merely provides the static details of a suspect's life along with an allegation of criminal conduct. (People v Yarber, 279 Ill.app.3d 519,529 (1996) The tip in my case was anonymous and based solely on material that was publicly available. In United State v Lopez, 907 F.3d 472, 482 (7th Cir 2018) "When a tipster is unknown officers "must conduct and rely upon independent investigation to corroborate a tip before seizing a person" The police in my case did not conduct an independent investigation to corroborate the tip, I was simply arrested. It also didn't help that the tipster who claimed to be in the United States, but their IP address was coming from France via a TOR node. Meaning the tipster may have not been truthful and the police did not know who that person was. "Although the police confirmed that the user posting the threat was using Daugherty name, likeness and callsign, this was all publicly available static information." Illinois v Daugherty (Motion to Suppress 2024)
"The questionable value of the publicly available information in linking him to the account was further diminished by the affidavit's references to the fact that Daugherty told police he did not post on the site and was being "set up" by someone who was trying to have his ham radio license suspended by the FCC. The other information in the affidavit was merely gratuitous information about Daugherty's past conviction, for an unrelated threat on law enforcement and does nothing to establish a reliable link between him and the threatening post." (Illinois v Daugherty Motion to Suppress 2024)

"Here, similarly, while the post had Daugherty's name, call sign, and photograph, all that information was publicly available. A simple check of the website logs could (and in fact later did) confirm whether there was a possibility that someone else was behind the post especially given the statement by Daugherty that he was being set up. Similarly, while probable cause, like authentication, is not a high bar; it does impose some requirements of due diligence on the part of the government before they obtain a warrant to conduct a search of every electronic device in someone's home. Simply restating information posted on a website, like www.hateandflame.com, and asserting they were done by someone who denies posting them is not enough. This is especially true where the affidavit contains no information about what credentials an individual must supply in order to access the website, what the policies on impersonating others are, or how they are enforced." (Motion to Suppress, Illinois v Daugherty 2024)

[admin]

AND ...

"The Device Warrant was an unconstitutional general warrant because it was completely lacking in particularity and as a result an overbroad' general warrant of the type "abhorred by the colonists" that lead to the creation of the Fourth Amendment and the particularity clause. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038 (1971); see also Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 2239-2240 (2018). Specifically, the warrant here failed to identify the data to be seized from the electronic devices or even the crime for which the police were required to restrict its search." (Motion to Suppress Illinois v Daugherty (2023)

[admin]

What's the matter...can't say anything?

[admin]

... The truth is, I am going to win, and I AM going to sue the police and the state and the FBI. When I was in jail my family even told me, "Once this is done, we will sue them" you might think I'm full of shit, the state attorney may think I full of shit, the FBI might think I'm full of shit, hell even that public defender might think I full of shit ... BUT I AM NOT! I AM GOING TO SUE THEM!!

[admin]

"The search here was unlimited in that it allowed a search of any computer or computer storage device for the following: any and all evidence of dominion and control over the computer, specifically, but not limited to, a computer possessing MAC address "EC:4F:82:29:84:03" or IP address "72.9.123.215"; peer file trading software; any and all information pertaining to dates and times of access to the computer; any and all information pertaining to internet searches pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence directed towards schools or public officials; records and other items which evidence ownership or use of computer equipment found in the above residence; including but not limited to sales receipts, bills for internet access and handwritten notes, records evidencing occupancy or ownership of the premises described above including but not limited to utility and telephone bills, mail envelopes or address correspondence. Search Warrant, 18-MR-40 (emphasis added) (Exhibit F).
This does not limit the search to evidence of the threatening post. The language specifically "includes but is not limited to" the subsequent clauses which provide an illustrative but non-exclusive list of what the government may search for and seize." (Motion to Suppress Illinois v Daugherty 2024)

meaning they seized everything on the computer, they did not list ANY actually item they were searching or seizing allowing them to rummage through and seize anything thus, making it a general warrant.

[admin]

"Here, Daugherty did not consent to a seizure or search the 15 items retained by the FBI. Instead, they were obtained through the use of a warrant that lacked probable cause, was obtained through the use of material misstatement and omissions, and was unconstitutionally unparticularized and overbroad." Illinois v Daugherty Motion to Suppress 2024)

[admin]

CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 135/) Harassing and Obscene Communications Act. (Repealed by P.A. 97-1108)