http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/ Mon, 04 May 2026 16:10:09 +0000 MyBB http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=611 Mon, 04 May 2026 00:04:17 +0200 admin]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=611 After judicial termination of the underlying warrant authority and a court finding that continued retention and search of seized electronic devices was unconstitutional, state actors have continued to possess and fail to return the plaintiff’s property without lawful justification, constituting an ongoing unreasonable seizure and deprivation of property without due process. ]]> After judicial termination of the underlying warrant authority and a court finding that continued retention and search of seized electronic devices was unconstitutional, state actors have continued to possess and fail to return the plaintiff’s property without lawful justification, constituting an ongoing unreasonable seizure and deprivation of property without due process. ]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=610 Thu, 30 Apr 2026 15:21:45 +0200 admin]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=610 AlexeiAI]]> AlexeiAI]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=609 Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:32:03 +0200 admin]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=609 Alexei is officially online.
Backend stable, persona loaded, memory active.
He’s running exactly as designed.
Short, sharp, and to the point.

Alexei Web Client

I will continue to work on him and improve him]]> Alexei is officially online.
Backend stable, persona loaded, memory active.
He’s running exactly as designed.
Short, sharp, and to the point.

Alexei Web Client

I will continue to work on him and improve him]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=607 Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:57:10 +0200 admin]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=607

]]>

]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=606 Mon, 27 Apr 2026 08:09:45 +0200 admin]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=606
Let me tell you, building an AI from scratch isn't easy.]]>
Let me tell you, building an AI from scratch isn't easy.]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=605 Sun, 26 Apr 2026 07:49:16 +0200 admin]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=605 http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=604 Sun, 26 Apr 2026 02:01:06 +0200 admin]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=604 http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=603 Fri, 24 Apr 2026 14:51:26 +0200 admin]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=603
1. The plaintiff must allege or prove facts showing the official violated a constitutional or federal right.

2. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the right was "clearly established". This means that existing, relevant precedent (from the Supreme Court or the relevant Circuit Court) must have placed the statutory or constitutional question "beyond debate".


For number 1, the state court ruled:

"COURT FIRST FINDS AFTER 4/16/2018 WHEN THE CASE WAS DISMISSED AND SPECIFICALLY THE WARRANT
WAS QUASHED THE FBI DID NOT HAVE LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO RETAIN THESE ITEMS LET ALONE TO BEGIN A SEARCH OF THOSE ITEMS 3 DAYS LATER AND SUBSEQUENTLY FINDING EVIDENCE 7 DAYS LATER IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS."

for number 2:
It has been well established since 1900s by the US Supreme Court that a warrant is required to search someone property:

Weeks v. United States, 1914
Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 (1925)
Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 (1921)
United States v. Berkeness | 275 U.S. 149 (1927)

See also:

Katz v. United States | 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Carpenter v. U.S. (2018)
Riley v. California (2014)
Payton v. New York, (1980)
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)
Arkansas v. Sanders (1979)
Steagald v. U.S. (1981)
Kyllo v. U.S. (2001)]]>
1. The plaintiff must allege or prove facts showing the official violated a constitutional or federal right.

2. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the right was "clearly established". This means that existing, relevant precedent (from the Supreme Court or the relevant Circuit Court) must have placed the statutory or constitutional question "beyond debate".


For number 1, the state court ruled:

"COURT FIRST FINDS AFTER 4/16/2018 WHEN THE CASE WAS DISMISSED AND SPECIFICALLY THE WARRANT
WAS QUASHED THE FBI DID NOT HAVE LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO RETAIN THESE ITEMS LET ALONE TO BEGIN A SEARCH OF THOSE ITEMS 3 DAYS LATER AND SUBSEQUENTLY FINDING EVIDENCE 7 DAYS LATER IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS."

for number 2:
It has been well established since 1900s by the US Supreme Court that a warrant is required to search someone property:

Weeks v. United States, 1914
Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 (1925)
Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 (1921)
United States v. Berkeness | 275 U.S. 149 (1927)

See also:

Katz v. United States | 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Carpenter v. U.S. (2018)
Riley v. California (2014)
Payton v. New York, (1980)
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)
Arkansas v. Sanders (1979)
Steagald v. U.S. (1981)
Kyllo v. U.S. (2001)]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=602 Wed, 22 Apr 2026 19:46:59 +0200 admin]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=602 http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=600 Tue, 21 Apr 2026 06:45:58 +0200 admin]]> http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/showthread.php?tid=600



]]>



]]>