(01-25-2025, 05:05 AM)NO TOAD Wrote:pedo Wrote:No she has to run it by me after all she is working for me.
No she doesn't. She didn't run that 30 day extension by you did she? Nope, she controls all motions 100 percent and since you are incompetent, you can't fire her and you're too much of a chicken shit to do so even if you could. The only thing she can't do is plead guilty for you but all court procedure, that's her.
The image is real and you know it... Just stop with the chronic lying and schizophrenia. They have a date of birth and the name of the real victim. You notice she even bother to bring that up, did she???
The Motion is going to be withdrawn as you have no say over that, it will go to trial, and you will be found guilty more than likely. you don't have the money for any more expert witnesses and your parents aren't going to pay for them either, are they? All the bail money is gone.
Oh, and I know you are googling like crazy, but a Nolle Presqui means you can't sue... But you have no choice over that, Tiffany will immediately accept it if he did that, which she can do without your permission. Only a DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE is suffice for you to base anything for a lawsuit. For that happen, it needs to go to trial. Tiffany has no interest in any civil matters so she won't care.
Oh, and the statute of limitations has expired on everything as it now... And qualified immunity... And so much other shit...
NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT
Actually, YEAH, SHE DID. I've have been well informed of what is going on in person at the public defender's office and via email.
That image was found under the second warrant (federal warrant) the issue is the first image which was a computer-generated image, which started the whole thing, it was found under the state warrant which as stated before is a general warrant.
No, it's not, we still have money for the witness for the image. you don't know what you are talking about.
Police don't qualified immunity for general warrants, in fact that the only place they don't get qualified immunity. for them not to get qualified immunity 1. that had to have violated a constitutional or statutory right and 2. that right has been well established by the courts. general warrants are unconstitutional under the fourth amendment, and it has been well established by the courts that general warrants are unconstitutional. So, no qualified immunity. (see Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 US Supreme Court (2004) In fact it has been well established since 1927 that general warrants were unconstitutional and a violation of someone rights.
Groh v. Ramirez | Oyez