Questions that need to be asked at the Franks Hearing

[admin]

These are some questions that need to be asked at the Franks Hearing

What steps, if any, did the affiant take to verify the identity of the poster before seeking the arrest?

Did the affiant disclose that the website allowed anonymous posting without login credentials?

Was there any forensic analysis conducted prior to the arrest to link the post to the defendant?

Did the affiant corroborate the tip with any independent evidence before seeking the arrest warrant?

Did the affiant disclose that posts continued in the defendant’s name while he was incarcerated?

Were the March 18th reports from third parties included in the affidavit or deliberately omitted?

Did the affiant inform the court that the website confirmed the defendant had never accessed it?

Was the affidavit updated to reflect the March 30th confirmation that the defendant was not the poster?

Did the affiant disclose that the probable cause had been undermined before the search warrant was executed?

Was the affidavit for the March 21st search warrant based on information already contradicted by third-party reports?

Did the affiant inform the court that the charges were dropped and the warrant quashed before the FBI accessed the devices?

Was there any legal basis for Agent O’Sullivan to retrieve and catalog the devices on April 16th after the warrant was invalidated?

Did the FBI disclose that the devices were obtained under a quashed state warrant?

Was the second federal warrant based on evidence obtained during an unlawful search?

Did the FBI misrepresent the legal status of the devices in their possession?

Was the computer-generated image used to justify the second warrant obtained during a search that violated the Fourth Amendment?

[admin]

Here's some more ...

Did the affiant know that the website allowed impersonation and anonymous posting?

Was the affiant aware of prior impersonation incidents involving the defendant?

Did the affiant consult with any digital forensic experts before asserting authorship of the post?

Was the affiant trained in internet investigations or digital identity verification?

Did the affidavit include the full context of the alleged threat, or was it selectively quoted?

Were any statements in the affidavit based on hearsay or unverified third-party claims?

Did the affiant omit the fact that the defendant had publicly criticized the police and announced intent to sue?

Was the affidavit reviewed by a supervisor or prosecutor before submission to the judge?

Was there a documented chain of custody for the seized devices from March 21 to April 16?

Did the FBI obtain a separate warrant before cataloging or accessing the devices on April 16?

Was any data accessed, copied, or analyzed before the second federal warrant was issued?

Were the devices stored in a secure, tamper-proof environment during the interim period?

Did the FBI disclose that the devices were originally seized under a quashed warrant?

Was the second warrant based on evidence obtained during an unlawful search?

Did the FBI misrepresent the origin of the image used to justify the second warrant?

Was the image found during a search that violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights?

Did the affiant or investigators have prior knowledge of the defendant’s public criticism or lawsuits?

Was the arrest timed in relation to the defendant’s public statements or legal filings?

Did any officer express personal animus or bias toward the defendant in internal communications?

Was the investigation influenced by reputational concerns or political pressure?

Was the judge who signed the original warrant made aware of the anonymous nature of the website?

Did the affiant disclose that the defendant was already incarcerated when new posts appeared?

Was the judge informed that the website confirmed the defendant had never accessed it?

Did the court receive any updates between March 21 and April 16 regarding the collapse of probable cause?

Was the judge who signed the second federal warrant made aware that the devices were obtained under a quashed warrant?

Did the affiant understand the difference between an IP address and a MAC address in attribution?

Was the MAC address ever linked to the defendant’s devices through forensic analysis?

Did the affiant or FBI verify whether the IP address was dynamic or static at the time of the post?

Was there any attempt to trace the actual poster through browser fingerprinting, cookies, or session logs?

Did the FBI or police consult with the website’s administrators about impersonation patterns or spoofing

Did the FBI know the state warrant had been quashed before accessing the devices?

Was there any memorandum of understanding between the state and federal agencies regarding the devices?

Did Agent O’Sullivan notify the state prosecutor before cataloging the devices on April 16?

Was there any internal discussion about the legality of continuing the investigation after charges were dropped?

Did the FBI rely on state-level probable cause that had already been invalidated?

Was the defendant’s public criticism of law enforcement cited in any internal communications or affidavits?

Did any officer or agent express concern about reputational damage or lawsuits stemming from the defendant’s speech?

Was the arrest or investigation timed to coincide with the defendant’s legal filings or public statements?

Has this department previously faced allegations of retaliatory arrests or misuse of digital evidence?

Were any officers disciplined or investigated for their role in this case?

Did the prosecution disclose the March 30th website confirmation to the defense in a timely manner?

Was any exculpatory evidence withheld during pretrial proceedings?

Did the FBI disclose the full chain of custody and access logs for the devices?

Was the image used to justify the second warrant disclosed to the defense before the warrant was issued?

Did the government ever attempt to suppress or seal evidence that contradicted their narrative?


Cross examination Questions that need to be asked:

“Can you explain why you proceeded with a search after the warrant was quashed?”

“Did you inform the court that the website confirmed the defendant was not the poster?”

“Why did you wait nearly two years to obtain a federal warrant after accessing the devices?”

“Is it standard practice to use evidence obtained during an invalid search to justify a new warrant?”

[admin]

The affiant relied on a tip from an individual who claimed to be in the United States but was confirmed—by both the FBI and myself—to be using a TOR exit node located in France. This fact was either omitted or misrepresented in the affidavit. The use of TOR undermines the tipster’s credibility, raises serious questions about their identity and motive, and suggests intentional anonymity. The affiant’s failure to disclose this constitutes a material omission that invalidates the affidavit’s integrity and the resulting warrant.

[admin]

One of the seized computers was retained at the Taylorville Police Department under undocumented and irregular conditions, as noted on the department’s control sheet: ‘stays at TPD,’ signed by the assistant chief of police. This same device was later cited as the source of a computer-generated image used to justify further investigation. The break in chain of custody, lack of forensic protocol, and supervisory involvement raises serious concerns about evidence integrity and possible manipulation. This undermines the credibility of the affidavit and the legality of the search.

[admin]

Was the affiant trained in internet investigations or digital identity verification?

My response to the question:

The affiant, who had only one year of experience as a police officer and no documented training in internet investigations or digital identity verification, was not qualified to interpret or present digital evidence. The affidavit contains assertions about online behavior and identity that require specialized expertise, which the affiant demonstrably lacked. This undermines the reliability of the affidavit and raises serious concerns about reckless disregard for truth under Franks v. Delaware. The warrant should be deemed invalid, and all evidence obtained as a result should be suppressed.

[Paul Drake]

[admin]

Nope, try again

[Paul Drake]

No one is reading it, not even your new lawyer, who only has a $6,250 budget which isn't enough for a Franks Hearing. Every time you email him, that's $100 (0.1 units at $1,000 per hour).

He's going to just write a plea agreement, that your parents will make you sign. While that is technically illegal, your parents can do things to make you sign it.

---

Unless of course your father comes up with the $20,000 to $30,000 required for a Franks Hearing.

[admin]

Nope, he has the whole 12,500 dollars. as for the other shit, that's not going to happen. my parents have no say in this.

[Paul Drake]

And $12,500 is not enough for Franks Hearing. So unless your parents come up with the rest, it's not going to happen.

He charges around $2,000 for a court appearance (driving time is counted as hourly fees), and probably around $100 to read each email you send him. Let alone the motion to dismiss will be withdrawn so he can work on it personally.

And of course, if he withdraws, you'll be out of money for your next lawyer. Like if someone tells him at mark@wykofflaw.com

And your parents do have a say, although not legally, just like in 2010, they have ways to make you accept a plea bargain. (and remember that plea bargain cost your grandfather $5,000 and that was in 2010). So $12,500 doesn't buy much, does it???