Lolcow Todd Daugherty / N9OGL / Fox Smith / Doc Dot - Domestic terrorist, ham radio sperg, self-described hikikomori, confirmed pedophile

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJ 447
  • Start date Start date
Alll that means is the date they got your computer from the initial search warrant. You are reading into shit that isn't there.

You claiming it's the date that the child porn was placed on your computer by the police while in custody is pure mental illness on your part. And like I keep saying, if the police planted it there, how come you know so much details about the porn? How do you know it's lolicon when the police expert stated to the judge it was child porn?

If you would have hired a real lawyer and asked for those computers back in 2018 properly, you might not have been arrested and spend over a month in jail in 2022. Or they have simply been building a case against you since March 2018 and finally got back IP records and such, remember you are the one saying they have over 1,000 documents about your case.

But you know everything, don't you???
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmateurComedicTaxidermist
NO JACKASS THAT IS THE ARREST DATE ON THE TICKET NUMBER
Click to expand...

So they arrested you for child porn on 3/21/18???

And you still haven't answered, you claim the police planted the child porn on your computer on 3/21/18 but if that is so. how do you know so much about the file in question and if it is lolicon or not when the court won't allow you view it? And if that photo they are charging with is lolicon, why not charge you with dozens of counts since you admit you have 100s of lolicon images???

See Todd, you are either lying on purpose or so mentally deluded that you can't tell fiction from reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmateurComedicTaxidermist
I explain it so you understand. The police arrest me for a threat, they got a warrant to search the computer looking for evidence pertaining to the threat. unable to find anything they then begin looking for stuff outside the scope of the warrant...AND THEY ADMITTED IT IN FRONT OF A JUDGE! police cannot go beyond the scope of the warrant, THAT IS ILLEGAL! the idea that it was in plain view also doesn't hold water because police tried that stick and the federal courts didn't buy it. BTW I can use federal cases in this, because it has to deal with the 4th amendment which is FEDERAL. warrants are part of the 4th amendment.
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, crayolasword and Anonymus Fluhre
N9OGL said:
I explain it so you understand. The police arrest me for a threat, they got a warrant to search the computer looking for evidence pertaining to the threat. unable to find anything they then begin looking for stuff outside the scope of the warrant...AND THEY ADMITTED IT IN FRONT OF A JUDGE! police cannot go beyond the scope of the warrant, THAT IS ILLEGAL! the idea that it was in plain view also doesn't hold water because police tried that stick and the federal courts didn't buy it. BTW I can use federal cases in this, because it has to deal with the 4th amendment which is FEDERAL. warrants are part of the 4th amendment.
Click to expand...
So you're not denying it was a a picture that depicted a child being fucked?
 
Stabmaster Arson II said:
But you knew it was l*lic*n rather than real. How did they describe it, exactly?
Click to expand...
NO, I know I have lolicon works (i.e., anime) on my computer. I don't know where that image came from. According to them, it was a real person. I haven't seen it, and like I said I don't know where it came from, so we've got to go by what was said by them in court.
 
  • Dumb
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, crayolasword and Trombonista
And almost everyone accused of downloading child pornn will say "I don't know where it came from".... That isn't going to hold water, and you said they got 1,000 documents of evidence, so I suspect they got a lot more than just the random child porn photo on your computer. They might have logs of you searching for it, the file on your cloud accounts, or other stuff. You don't know what they got.

You just admitted they said it was child porn, so your own lawyer will stipulate that it is child porn, so you get no expert witness to counter it. I She will base your defense (if you don't plea bargain) based that it's real porn that was found. Saying "you didn't know the age of the person or who it was" isn't a defense that will be used either.

And if was simple lolicon, you would have been charged with a lot more than one charge.

And if you want to say "the police planted it on my computer" excuse.. well, as I said, you are delusional.

Your lawyer knows more than you and she will defend you on what she feels is best, not you. (She will urge you to plea out more than likely)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidFerrie and AmateurComedicTaxidermist
Dirty Harry said:
And almost everyone accused of downloading child pornn will say "I don't know where it came from".... That isn't going to hold water, and you said they got 1,000 documents of evidence, so I suspect they got a lot more than just the random child porn photo on your computer. They might have logs of you searching for it, the file on your cloud accounts, or other stuff. You don't know what they got.

You just admitted they said it was child porn, so your own lawyer will stipulate that it is child porn, so you get no expert witness to counter it. I She will base your defense (if you don't plea bargain) based that it's real porn that was found. Saying "you didn't know the age of the person or who it was" isn't a defense that will be used either.

And if was simple lolicon, you would have been charged with a lot more than one charge.

And if you want to say "the police planted it on my computer" excuse.. well, as I said, you are delusional.

Your lawyer knows more than you and she will defend you on what she feels is best, not you. (She will urge you to plea out more than likely)
Click to expand...
JACKASS there is a LOT more too it then just oh it's child porn, AGAIN THERE IS A WHOLE ISSUE WITH THE WARRANT. BTW they were trying to go after me for the anime shit too, you FUCKING MORON.

and YOU don't know SHIT!! you weren't in the court room, and you don't know what's was said or what's really going on, your just assuming shit.

Again, I'm not taking ANY plea deals GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD
 
  • Dumb
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, crayolasword and AmateurComedicTaxidermist
Just think, Todd Daugherty is 54 years old, lived with parents all his life, and 100% indigenti.

JACKASS there is a LOT more too it then just oh it's child porn, AGAIN THERE IS A WHOLE ISSUE WITH THE WARRANT. BTW they were trying to go after me for the anime shit too, you FUCKING MORON.
Click to expand...

No, you are being charged with posession of a child pornography picture of a child under the age of 13. This "they were trying to get me" is 100% irrevelant and are just inventing that out of thin air.

There is no statue of limitations of child porn possession and I am certain they found it while searching your computer for evidence in the 2018 case, which probably was in plain site while searching your computer. Then they got another warrant to secure the child porn search. Threats can come in the form of images by way.

And as I said, I suspect there is a lot more than just one photo, again, as you said, they got 1,000 documents.... Don't you think those documents have shit like IP logs, cloud storage, and other stuff?? For all you know, they might have 100s of child porn pics on your computer they discovered and just are charging you with one count.

I've posted on here many cases where people who were doing computer repairs saw child porn via an open search and reported it to the police where they police THEN got the search warrant.

I keep telling you over and over that you should have hired a real lawyer in 2018, and this probably never happens to you in 2022. But you know everything and nothing is ever your fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidFerrie and AmateurComedicTaxidermist
Dirty Harry said:
Just think, Todd Daugherty is 54 years old, lived with parents all his life, and 100% indigenti.



No, you are being charged with posession of a child pornography picture of a child under the age of 13. This "they were trying to get me" is 100% irrevelant and are just inventing that out of thin air.

There is no statue of limitations of child porn possession and I am certain they found it while searching your computer for evidence in the 2018 case, which probably was in plain site while searching your computer. Then they got another warrant to secure the child porn search. Threats can come in the form of images by way.

And as I said, I suspect there is a lot more than just one photo, again, as you said, they got 1,000 documents.... Don't you think those documents have shit like IP logs, cloud storage, and other stuff?? For all you know, they might have 100s of child porn pics on your computer they discovered and just are charging you with one count.

I've posted on here many cases where people who were doing computer repairs saw child porn via an open search and reported it to the police where they police THEN got the search warrant.

I keep telling you over and over that you should have hired a real lawyer in 2018, and this probably never happens to you in 2022. But you know everything and nothing is ever your fault.
Click to expand...
They can't search without a warrant, and they had none. The ONLY warrant they had was specified to look for certain thing's; images wasn't one of those things. The warrant MUST specified what they are looking for. The image wasn't in plain sight, and they can't use that excuse because the images were in a folder. A warrant doesn't allow law enforcement to go through every folder that's on the computer, that why they have to use a special software that limit their search for those specified things. The software the FBI uses is similar to ILook Investigator Forensic Software which separates the files into specified folders for example text files go into one folder, images in another, EXE files in another, that way an exploratory search doesn't happen, and the plain view claim can't be used. The only image they found, and I'm being charged with is ONE because all the other images are "virtual child porn" although Illinois could go after me for that (because under Illinois's Child porn law that too is illegal) but the state won't because the US Supreme Court has ruled that "virtual child porn" was not only legal but protected under the first amendment. They did get a second warrant only after they found it through any illegal search. they couldn't find anything relating to material specified in the warrant and gave up searching. They then decided to go looking for other materials that were outside the scope of the original warrant. when they found something, they then got a warrant. That the reason the US government didn't want to take the case, because they knew the FBI went outside the scope of warrant to find the material which is illegal because it violates the fourth amendment.

There is a BIG difference between a computer repair person finding something and law enforcement going beyond the scope of the warrant they have. Warrants are legal binding under the fourth amendment. A computer repair person doesn't haven't to follow the fourth amendment, a law enforcement officer, bounded by warrant DOES. The Supreme court has stated ALLL THE WAY BACK to 1927 that a warrant must specify what law enforcement is looking for and law enforcement is not allowed to go beyond what they are looking for, unless what they find is in plain view. The courts have limited the plain view doctrine in regard to electronic equipment because “Since electronic storage is likely to contain a greater quantity and variety of information than any previous storage method, computers make tempting targets in searches for incriminating information.” The majority of cases where police have found material outside the scope of the warrant gets thrown out and the cases get dismissed because of limit of warrants and the Fourth Amendment. Just like my case if they upheld it in state court, I would appeal it to the federal level, and it will get thrown out.

It doesn't matter if you pay a lawyer or not a lawyer is a lawyer both are bounded the same canons and rules.
 
  • Dumb
  • Optimistic
  • Disagree
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, crayolasword, Anonymus Fluhre and 1 other person
Stabmaster Arson II said:
Oh so it wasn't just one image, you had a bunch of jack off material centred around kids.
Click to expand...
I had "virtual child porn" which some anime would fall under and as I stated that material is legal and is protected under the first amendment. What a person looks at in the privacy of their home is no one's business, including the government (Stanely v Georgia) the issue is the legality of the material. If the material is illegal then yeah, they can get into your business, but if its legal then they can't
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, crayolasword and Fwiffo
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back