01-30-2025, 06:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2025, 02:42 AM by admin.
Edit Reason: correction of wording
)
Dirty Harry posted:
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
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.
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.
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.
Quote: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
Quote:Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.