PING TODD DAUGHERTY: Downloading virtual child porn is a felony in Illinois

[Todd Daugherty Library]

It's also against the terms of your bond you agreed on...

[admin]

That law is unconstitutional because US Supreme Court has stated virtual child pornography is legal and constitutional protected speech (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition 2002) and Illinois Supreme Court in 2003 also stated it was legal and constitutional protected speech unless deemed obscene. But people have the right to look at obscene material in the privacy of their home Stanley v Georgia (US Supreme Court 1969)

[admin]

The Illinois law is unconstitutional because it states ""Purported child" means a visual representation that appears to depict a child under the age of 18 but may or may not depict an actual child under the age of 18." which the US Supreme court would have an issue with. The along with a few other lines in the law. It is also unconstitutional under the Illinois constitution because it violates the "Illinois single subject rule" which is found in Article 8 of the Illinois constitution which limit a bill to one subject, The new child pornography law was buried in the middle of a law that oversaw CDL for driving buses. therefore, it violates the single subject rule.

[Todd Daugherty Library]

You can not afford to find out.

Do you think your guardians will post another 5 figure bail for you??? So you'll rot in jail and if you think 2 1/2 years is long for your current case, just wait until you are charged with this. Your parents will make you sit in jail for years and they will probably die while you are in jail or prison.

Plus the judge can revoke your bail or increase conditions on your current bail

[admin]

No because of the Illinois Safe T Act and the eighth amendment

[Todd Daugherty Library]

Safe-T act doesn't cover sex offenses... I suggest you look up sex offenders who have been arrested in your county since the law passed.  Every single case the judge denied it and Tiffany accepted it.  Sound familiar by the way???

Defendant present in person and in custody with Public Defender
Senger who is appointed to represent the Defendant. State's Attorney Present. Case called for preliminary hearing and hearing on the State's petition to deny pretrial release. Detective Nelson of the Taylorville Police Department sworn and testifies. Arguments heard. Petition to deny pretrial release granted for reasons stated on the record.

Like I said, you can not afford...

[admin]

Safe-T act doesn't cover sex offenses... I suggest you look up sex offenders who have been arrested in your county since the law passed.  Every single case the judge denied it and Tiffany accepted it.  Sound familiar by the way???

Defendant present in person and in custody with Public Defender
Senger who is appointed to represent the Defendant. State's Attorney Present. Case called for preliminary hearing and hearing on the State's petition to deny pretrial release. Detective Nelson of the Taylorville Police Department sworn and testifies. Arguments heard. Petition to deny pretrial release granted for reasons stated on the record.

Like I said, you can not afford...

Actually Safe-T act does in fact a person here in Chirstian County (who was being charged on Child sex abuse I believe, challenged it and won. They had his bail high and he appealed the deinal of a hearing under the safe T act and won. The ONLY thing I know that it wouldn't apply to is probably murderers. There also Supreme Court rulings regarding social media which they stated that Anything on the internet is considered social media. (Packham v North Carolina 2017) there also the eighth amendment of the US Constitution regarding excessive BAIL. Excessive bail is considered unconstitutional. Bail is not meant to punish someone accused of a crime, it is a means to make sure the person appears before the court, which for the last three years, going on four I have done so. Now judges can make conditions in the bail agreement that is meant to keep the public safe. But when it comes to communication (speech) they have to take to first amendment into consideration. For example, a judge can bar someone accused of staking or harassment a victim from not communicating with the victim while the trial is going on. But a judge has to weight in the accuses first amendment right and can completely bar his speech. If this judge or state attorney have a problem with it, they need to take it up with US Supreme Court, because THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE REQUIRING THE JUDGES TO THAT.

so go fuck yourself

[admin]

They aren't going to do anything, not while a general warrant is in play. Because if they do go after me for what you are claiming, I will use the excessive bail against them in my appeal, and the fact that the image (1) image was found on a general warrant. which had no probable cause, no particularity, and was quashed by a judge. An image I might add was computer generated which both the US Supreme Court and the Illinois Supreme Court BOTH said was not only legal, but constitutional protected speech. (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition -2002, People of State of Illinois v Kenneth Alexander 2003)

I will use ANYTHING THEY USE AGAINST ME, TO GO AFTER THEM. I AM GOING SUE THEM AND THEY BETTER BE AWARE OF THAT. I WILL NOT ONLY GO AFTER THEM FOR THE GENERAL WARRANT BULLSHIT, but I WILL also GO AFTER THEM FOR FREE SPEECH.

I'M GOING BUY ME A NICE ISLAND IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC - AWAY FROM THESE FUCKING RETARDS.