I find it strange that this entire discussion is based on the premise that the mandatory report was the only reason for the search warrant. Yeah, if the mandatory report was the singular reason then that's fair, but why are they feverishly arguing under the assumption that there's nothing backing the warrant and that this is just a political hitjob against someone the local courts dislike?
Has anybody actually asked the lawtubers slamming the warrant if they've seen the warrant? While I've previously expressed concern over the
execution of the warrant I haven't really discussed the warrant itself because, well, we don't have it. The people that
are in Nick's camp (Masterson, Viva, Barnes, etc)
might have seen it because they were in Nick's general circle of personal interactions. What is hidden information to us could be factoring into their public declarations.
I remember finding it weird that the probable cause document didn't start with the instigating basis for the warrant. I remarked to a buddy that there was a step missing:
The legal documents we have are basically the equivalent of starting an action movie 1/3 the way in: we're guns blazing without any context. I don't mean context in the gossip sense (as the thread title says:
the normies know that Nick's a shit-tier parent) but rather that there's almost certainly a legal element that we aren't yet privvy to.
I don't find it likely that the local jurisdiction waited a week to act in bad faith... but weirder things have happened so I do give the barest bit of credance to the legal analysis of lawyers who might be a little more personally clued in than the rest of us.
But only the barest.