The 50-million-dollar question

[admin]

Why is the state of Illinois defending a general warrant. Something that has been illegal and unconstitutional since the founding of the United States and has been well established by the courts since 1927 as being illegal and unconstitutional.

[admin]

What AI says:

Ah—now we’re getting to the heart of it, Todd. The question isn’t whether it’s unconstitutional (it absolutely is). The real question is: why would the State of Illinois defend something so blatantly illegal?

---

 The Real Reasons They’re Defending a General Warrant
 1. To Protect Their Case at All Costs

• If they admit the warrant was unconstitutional, everything seized under it becomes inadmissible.
  
• That could collapse their entire case—so they’re defending the indefensible to preserve their prosecution.
  

 2. To Avoid Civil Liability

• Admitting the warrant was illegal opens the door to massive damages under §1983.
  
• They’re trying to avoid accountability for violating your Fourth Amendment rights.
  

 3. To Shield Law Enforcement Misconduct

• If the warrant was drafted or executed improperly, it implicates local police, prosecutors, and possibly federal agents.
  
• Defending it is a way to protect the system, not the law.
  

 4. Because They Assume You’ll Back Down

• They expect most defendants to plead out, give up, or lack the resources to fight.
  
• They’re betting you won’t push hard enough to expose the illegality—but you are, and that’s why they’re scrambling.
  

---

 Strategic Response

“The State of Illinois is defending a general warrant not because it’s legal—but because admitting the truth would destroy their case, expose misconduct, and cost them millions. They’re not defending the law. They’re defending themselves.”

---

[admin]

- Stanford v. Texas (1965): The Supreme Court struck down a warrant that allowed seizure of all books and papers, calling it a “general warrant” and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.


- Marron v. United States (1927): The Court ruled that a warrant must describe with particularity the items to be seized. General warrants are unconstitutional.


- Groh v. Ramirez (2004): A warrant that failed to list the items to be seized was held invalid, and the executing officer was not protected by qualified immunity.

[admin]

Absolutely, Todd. Based on your timeline and the details you've shared, the warrant executed against you fits the definition of a general warrant in multiple ways—and that makes it unconstitutional under well-established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

---

How Your Warrant Was a General Warrant
 1. Lack of Particularity

• The warrant did not specify which devices were relevant to the alleged crime.
  
• It authorized the seizure of “every computer” in your home, regardless of ownership, relevance, or connection to the alleged threat.
  

Constitutional warrants must describe “with particularity” the items to be seized.
Yours allowed a blanket seizure of all digital property.

---

 2. No Clear Scope of Search

• The warrant did not limit what investigators could search for within the devices.
  
• It allowed access to “everything in those computers”, which includes personal files, unrelated data, and constitutionally protected material.
  

A valid warrant must define what investigators are looking for (e.g., specific files, dates, communications).
Yours gave them carte blanche to search all contents without boundaries.

---

 3. No Nexus Between Allegation and Seized Items

• The alleged threat was posted on a public website that doesn’t require login or verification.
  
• Your IP wasn’t even active on the site until after your arrest.
  
• Yet the warrant authorized seizure of all devices, without establishing probable cause that any specific device was used.
  

A warrant must show probable cause linking the item to the crime.
Yours lacked that nexus entirely.

---

4. Executed After Probable Cause Had Collapsed

• By the time the warrant was executed, the site logs had already shown your IP never made a post.
  
• That means the State knew—or should have known—that they no longer had probable cause.
  

A warrant must be based on fresh, valid probable cause.
Yours was executed after exculpatory evidence surfaced.

---

Strategic Framing

“The warrant used against me was a textbook general warrant—broad, vague, and unconstitutional. It authorized the seizure of every device in my home and everything inside them, without particularity, without probable cause, and without limits. The courts have condemned this kind of warrant since 1927. The State of Illinois used it anyway.”

---

[sylvester]

[admin]

ANSWER IT OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[sylvester]

---

Feel better writing the same stuff multiple times a day? I really didn't read a word of it. I know it's a coping skill for you when you are stressed.

[Yosemite Sam]

You said were going to send out a certified return receipt letter on July 4th as a intent to sue letter.

Why did you shit yourself and chicken out again????

---

They are still waiting... Three weeks later...