A Reply

[admin]

It the state that now holding it up, NOT my lawyer. apparently two months wasn't enough time to read 96 pages

[admin]

The issue is JACKASS, is the FBI agent LIED about the image. The FBI agent that found the image said it was computer generated while another agent who took the case went to the federal judge claiming it was child porn. when the AUSA declined to take the case that slimeball FBI agent went to the Illinois state police claiming it was child porn. So, Illinois was under the impression that it was child porn.

I AM GOING TO SUE THE FUCK OUT OF THEM!!!

[admin]

No, he declined to take the case, we have the document to prove it; you fucking LIAR!

BTW ANY STATE AND FEDS WHO HAPEEN TO COME ON HERE, DIRTY HARRY (AKA Brian Crow K3VR) is the one who is the one that heavily involved in this whole bullshit. After all he posted a lot of tweets before the threat was posted and was in communication with the FBI in fall of 2018 under his twitter handle @FCCBODYGUARD, claiming I was lying to them

ALL TWEETS BELOW ARE FROM FEB. 2018

[admin]

As I stated many times before:

1. they didn't probable cause
2. the warrant was a general warrant
3. the warrant was quashed
4. they had no right to those computers, and the search was a warrantless search.


I AM GOING TO SUE THE FUCK OUT OF THEM... I AM GOING TO SUE THE CITY, THE STATE, AND FUCKING FBI!!!

[admin]

HERE'S A COMMENT FROM A JACKASS -WANTABE LAWYER ...





REALLY?? This warrant was a general warrant because 1. they didn't have probable cause, because they didn't corroborate the anonymous tipster tip and did no investigation to show any linkage between the threat and my computers. in fact, the information they did get proved that I didn't do it. It was also a general warrant because it didn't particularize what was to be seized. The police not only searched 15 devices, but they also seized everything on those devices. The US Supreme court has stated that is unconstitutional and a general warrant because they don't have probable cause for everything on the devices. The police cannot seize everything in a computer or cell phone, they must specify what file or file type they are wanting to seize. My warrant not only didn't specify what file was to be seized, it state on it what the crime was, nor did it incorporate the affidavit.

THUS, THE WARRANT WAS A GENERAL WARRANT!!!

[admin]

DIRTY HARRY AKA @FCCBODYGUARD AKA BRIAN CROW and look he has those gun images that was in the threatening post.

[admin]

The issue is JACKASS, is the FBI agent LIED about the image. The FBI agent that found the image said it was computer generated while another agent who took the case when to the federal judge claiming it was child porn. when the AUSA declined to take the case that slimeball FBI agent went to the Illinois state police claiming it was child porn. So, Illinois was under the impression that it was child porn.

I AM GOING TO SUE THE FUCK OUT OF THEM!!!

Let me explain it to you. Child porn under US and Illinois law must be images of REAL children engaged in sexual activity. The reason they had to be real children and not computer generated (ie created by a computer program like Daz3d or Autodesk Maya) is because there has to be a victim. As the US Supreme Court has stated computer generated images or virtual child porn has no real victim. Child porn has been illegal since the earlier 80's prior to that it was legal. The reason it became illegal was the harm it did to real children. Child porn in itself is constitutional protected speech, what stops it is how it is made. In fact, in Ferber v New York (US Supreme Court 1982) The US Supreme Court stated that some child porn has some first amendment protection, however, it is how it made that makes it illegal (the harming of real children) That's why in 2002 in Ashcroft v Free Speech coalition the US Supreme court ruled that virtual child porn was legal because it didn't use or harm real children (unlike Ferber which used real children) The child porn laws isn't there to stop what it's displaying, it there to stop how it is being made with using REAL children. virtual child porn covers that market because it doesn't use real children.

[admin]

Proof that the AUSA declined to take the case. Dirty harry is a fucking liar!!

[Guest]

It was real child porn and you are going to prison bitch boy

[admin]

No, it wasn't, the FBI agent that did the forensic on the computers said was computer generated, another agent that took the case is the one who said it was real child porn. So, their own forensic experts don't know the difference between real child porn and virtual, it calls into question their expertise in forensics. Like what else in other cases did they claim it was something when it was something else?