Ok a recap for the newbies

[admin]

Here a recap for those who just joined and don't want to read all the stuff on here:

The case is about an individual (ME) was arrested by the state under 1 charge for one image which was computer generated and was found under a general search warrant. Computer generated images are legal according to both the US Supreme Court (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition 2002 and United States v Williams 2008) and the Illinois Supreme Court (People for the State of Illinois v Kenneth Alexander 2003) Not only are computer generated images legal, but they constitutionally protected speech under the first amendment unless deemed obscene. However, individuals have the right to look at obscene material in the privacy of their home (Stanley v Georgia US Supreme Court 1969) 

The image (which again was legal) was found under a general search warrant. General search warrants are unconstitutional and have been since the founding of the United States. The US Supreme Court has also established general search warrants are unconstitutional and a violation of a person's right. ( Marron v United States 1927 US Supreme Court, Carpenter v United States 2018 US Supreme Court, Katz v United States 1967 US Supreme Court, Marcus v Search Warrant 1961 US Supreme Court, Groh v Ramirez 2004 US Supreme Court)

The warrant in this case did not particularize what they were supposed to be looking for and did not set up a protocol for how the search of the electronic devices was to be conducted. Instead, the search warrant seized only the computers and allowed the FBI to rummage through everything and seize anything that they saw was contraband without having probable cause for that item or was the reason for the seizure to begin with. In fact, the FBI used software to look for hash codes which are associated with child porn, something they weren't authorized to do, but the warrant being a general search warrant, allowed them to do just that, because the warrant didn't state what items they had probable cause for or what even the crime was, instead it allowed the FBI to violate my constitutional rights. Therefore, the search warrant was a general warrant.

[admin]

When the police get a search warrant, they must state probable cause and state what person or thing they plan to search with particularity, and the person or thing they plan to seize with particularity. When it comes to computers and digital devices, they can't seize everything in the computer or digital device, instead they have to state what file or files they are wanting to seize. This doesn't stop them from taking the devices off site and searching them, it merely limits what they are allowed to search and seize. For example, if the police get a warrant to search a computer for tax invasion, they can't search the computer for child porn, because the warrant limited the search to materials dealing with tax invasion.

[Protect Our children]

You are being charged with real child pornography and have been producing child pornography for at least 18 years.

You are danger to your community by being allowed access to the internet and been doing that activity for decades

[admin]

No, you are full of shit, I had an anime website, anime which is cartoons is not child porn, in fact the courts have repeatedly stated that child porn laws would not cover cartoons, and the federal government agreed with the courts.

[Guest]

You are being charged with child pornography. You've been sexually attracted and obsessed about children for 20 years and probably even more..

---

Todd Daugherty continues to sexualize children while out on bond

[admin]

So, I have a right to look and write obscene material in the privacy of my home (Stanley v Georgia US Supreme Court 1969)

[admin]

The ISP claimed cartoon images were realistic "child porn" the US Supreme court says NO it's not. It does not nor can it fall into category of Child pornography

[Earl]

So, I have a right to look and write obscene material in the privacy of my home (Stanley v Georgia US Supreme Court 1969)

Posting in social media websites and on the web is not in the privacy of your "parents" house.. It's you trying to groom children in Taylorville and on the web.  It's also a violation of your bond agreement, which the judge should revoke just like they did in 2012 and order you to get a psychiatric evaluation like they did with Daniel Larson and delay your case until the evaluation is complete.

W/ CONDITIONS OF NO SOCIAL MEDIA; NO UNSUPERVISED CONTACT WITH MINORS;
NO UNSUPERVISED INTERNET USE; 

Your parents could also be found in contempt of court as they are allowing you to use their house and internet to groom children.

[admin]

Anything on the internet could be considered social media (Packingham v North Carolina - US Supreme Court 2017)

[admin]

The Court held that social media—defined broadly to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post, and WebMD—is a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech