The real child porn N9OGL is being charged, thanks Toad for uploading this originally

[admin]

No evidence of what you are saying and you keep changing your story. The FBI found 1,000s of virtual child porn images on top of the real child porn images.

from a warrant that was not only a general warrant but was quashed by a judge. Again, virtual child pornography is not illegal.

And we know you consented to the search through your lawyer in April 2018 and continued consent until March 17, 2021 by your own postings never once asking for the computers back because you thought you weren't allowed to. Do you remember me taunting about that? I'm sure you do.

Prove it. Nowhere was their consent in fact as I stated from the FBI own words for the application for a search warrant

"The Daugherty Devices are currently in the lawful possession of the FBI. The devices came into the FBI's possession in the following way: on March 21, 2018, the Taylorville Police Department seized the Daugherty Devices from Todd Eugene Daugherty based on a state search warrant related to threats of a mass shooting against Memorial Elementary School in Taylorville, Illinois made by Daugherty. The search warrant authorized the search and seizure of any and all computers, as defined in 720 ILCS 5/16D-2."

The FBI even acknowledged that they had the devices from a search warrant. A search warrant and consent are two different things. 

Actually, yeah, we did ask for them back. both me and my father.

Your lawyer isn't even contesting that child porn. There is no such thing as "holding back"

We are challenging the search warrant because as I stated many times before: 

1. they didn't have probable cause to search them because the information the police had come from an uncorroborated informant, and they did nothing to link the computers to the threat.
 
2. The search warrant was a general warrant because it didn't particularize what they were to seize within the computer, nor did say what the crime was, and as stated above they didn't not link the crime to the computers, in fact they knew before handing over the computers to the FBI that they didn't have probable cause.

3. The waited too long to execute the warrant. The warrant was issued on April 21st but wasn't executed until March 23rd. The US Supreme Court has stated anything over 31 days is considered unreasonable and unconstitutional. The second warrant also has that issue it wasn't issued until 2 years later making it very unreasonable and very unconstitutional.

I don't what what you are referring to by "holding back"

[Nim Historian]

Virtual child pornography is illegal in the state of Illinois. Hopefully they will arrest you for it, charge you, you won't get bail and sit in jail for years while "courts decide".

I noticed you changed the dodged the subject like the worm you are.

Show us proof of what your saying. Show us proof that the FBI said the victim was 18 when the crime happened and they changed her birthdate.

Show us proof that the FBI is now stating the image you are charged with is virtual child porn

It only exists in your schizophrenic head and your lawyer isn't challenging that it wasn't child porn. She knows the warrant is good, you consented to the search in April 2018, and said they had until March 17, 2021 to examine your computers.

You lying to those "experts" DC is already exposed. The only reason the DA didn't get the hearing thrown out is the judge is trying to give off the impression you had a "fair trial".

The DA has experts ready in two weeks. Your lawyer has no one, those "experts" in DC aren't flying in either.

You're going to prison. The question is, how many more charges will be tacked on before you do.

[admin]

Virtual child pornography is illegal in the state of Illinois. Hopefully they will arrest you for it, charge you, you won't get bail and sit in jail for years while "courts decide".

No, it's not. AI generated is, and the law is unconstitutional. Not all computer-generated images are AI. I have used AI but I mostly use Daz3d which isn't an AI program, it a program for rendering people and objects it's almost like Blender or Autodesk Maya. You actually have to make the character from scratch; it is definitely not an AI program. In fact, the computer-generated image they found on that computer back in 2018 was made from Daz3d. Virtual child porn also applies to cartoons and painting that cannot be consider child porn period, in fact the US Supreme court has even said that. 

I noticed you changed the dodged the subject like the worm you are.

No I'm not

Show us proof of what your saying. Show us proof that the FBI said the victim was 18 when the crime happened and they changed her birthdate.

YOU aren't entitled to that information. this case has NOTHING to do with you, you are not a part of it

Show us proof that the FBI is now stating the image you are charged with is virtual child porn

it's in the motion to suppress, which I have posted on this site.

It only exists in your schizophrenic head and your lawyer isn't challenging that it wasn't child porn. She knows the warrant is good, you consented to the search in April 2018, and said they had until March 17, 2021 to examine your computers.

no they didn't show proof.

You lying to those "experts" DC is already exposed. The only reason the DA didn't get the hearing thrown out is the judge is trying to give off the impression you had a "fair trial".

How did I lie? All the information that they got wasn't from me, it was from the police and FBI own records. everything the NACDL's Fourth Amendment Center got was from in discovery given to us by the state. those documents are from the police and FBI.

The DA has experts ready in two weeks. Your lawyer has no one, those "experts" in DC aren't flying in either.

want to bet. They are writing the Subpoena up as we speak.

You're going to prison. The question is, how many more charges will be tacked on before you do.

They have to resolve the issues:

1. they didn't have probable cause to search them because the information the police had come from an uncorroborated informant, and they did nothing to link the computers to the threat.

2. The search warrant was a general warrant because it didn't particularize what they were to seize within the computer, nor did say what the crime was, and as stated above they didn't not link the crime to the computers, in fact they knew before handing over the computers to the FBI that they didn't have probable cause.

3. The waited too long to execute the warrant. The warrant was issued on March 21st but wasn't executed until April 23rd. The US Supreme Court has stated anything over 31 days is considered unreasonable and unconstitutional. The second warrant also has that issue it wasn't issued until 2 years later making it very unreasonable and very unconstitutional.