Why The 2015 Arrest Was Unlawful

[admin]

Why The 2015 Arrest Was Unlawful

Protected Speech, Not Criminal Conduct

- Stating an intent to sue government actors is not a threat—it's an invocation of due process.

- First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech and to petition the government.

Retaliation for Exercising Rights

- If the arrest was directly tied to you saying you'd sue, it may qualify as retaliatory arrest, which courts have struck down repeatedly.

- Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) sets the framework: even if probable cause existed, arresting someone because of protected speech can still violate the Constitution.

Pattern of Harassment

- That arrest in 2015 wasn’t an isolated event—it set the tone for eight years of suppression, intimidation, and rights violations.
- It’s now part of a timeline that bolsters your civil case, showing a long-standing effort to silence and discredit you.

[N9OGL REPEAT BOT]

Your profile pic at the time and the image you posted about your police chief. You seemed to have left that out. Both are in the police report from 2015

[admin]

There was no gun picture in the post. The whole post was given to the judge by my lawyer

[N9OGL REPEAT BOT]

And the judge never threw out the case. It was Nolle Presqui by the District Attorney.

I know with your feeble mind and your ability to understand things, that you don't know the difference.

Even with that, Statute of Limitations expired on that in 2017, 8 years ago. Just like how your 2018 arrest, you allowed the Statute of Limitations to expire. Along with the fact you never asked for your computers back as no paperwork was filed, and they had collaboration (your past history, your past conviction for threatening to use a bomb on your telephone/cable company,  and your threats on Twitter the day after, right before they found you hiding in the basement).

[admin]

Yeah he threw it out. I did shit what judici.com says it on record of him saying "I'm throwing this out" I don't really give a shit about it. it was brought it up in the affidavit for the search warrant in 2018 and is mentioned in discovery in a number of places

[admin]

One a charge has been dismissed, which it was in 2018 they have no right to maintain control over those digital devices. In fact the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court have stated that the police cannot hold onto the devices indefinitely.

[N9OGL REPEAT BOT]

They do have the right. You have to fill out the forms to get confiscated property returned to you. If you also notice, the FBI agent wasn't told the "warrant was quashed", only the charges were dropped although the judge told you they could be reinstated and the investigation could continue.

But like I said, you never submitted a request for their return and even on Kiwifarms you stated they had until March 16, 2021 to return your computers. Even after that and threatening a lawsuit, you never did. And your record of threatening to file lawsuits remains as zero as you have never filed one in your life. Going by your hearing last month where you father had to speak and ask questions on your behalf, the odds you are going to file anything on your own is zero.

I suggest you encourage your father to find you a lawyer fast.

[admin]

My Response:
Let me address your points directly.

1. Legal Basis for Retention: Once charges are dismissed, the State no longer has the legal authority to retain my property unless a valid forfeiture action or new warrant is filed. Multiple constitutional precedents—including the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments—confirm that continued possession of personal property without legal justification amounts to unlawful seizure.
   
   
2. Filing Forms: The idea that property cannot be returned without filling out paperwork ignores that unlawful retention isn’t cured by bureaucracy. I don’t surrender constitutional rights simply because I didn’t fill out the right form. The burden is on the State to justify retention—not on me to beg for what is mine.
   
3. Quashed Warrants and Dismissed Charges: The distinction is irrelevant if there's no active warrant or lawful hold. The government cannot continue to possess private devices indefinitely under the excuse of a speculative future reinstatement.
   
4. Personal Attacks: Mocking whether I filed lawsuits or how my hearing was conducted says more about your priorities than mine. Legal strategy isn’t measured by internet posts—it’s measured by constitutional validity. And attacking family members to undermine legal arguments is a tactic that courts see through immediately.
   

If you’re serious about understanding the law, focus on the Constitution—not Kiwifarms. And if your goal is to intimidate or gaslight, I’m not the audience for that.

Let’s keep the conversation on track: Is there a legal basis for retaining my devices once charges are dismissed? Because unless you can show one, all the distractions are just noise trying to drown out accountability.

[N9OGL REPEAT BOT]

LMAO!!! Another AI response where you deleted out the parts you didn't like.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH

[admin]

Nope, that is unedited