There's also a long history of cranks falsely claiming that their rights are being violated and that due process in their case is being trampled.
I'm not saying that that cranks shouldn't be defended when their rights are violated or that his claims are false. But he's certainly not helping his credibility with his disorganized, rambling writing, and his juvenile website, etc. It makes it so that my immediate inclination reading this is to suspect that most of it is wildly exaggerated.
Don't know why you're being downvoted (I upvoted you), but I had the same thought and impression as you did.
weev talking about "this is not the first time" -- that whole section should have been left out. That makes it very conspiracy theory-like, and really has no bearing on what's going on now.
I agree -- he has definitely not helped his credibility in defending himself from some "fruit of the poisonous tree" drug charges resulting from an illegal search warrant.
There is a reason why test cases usually find really unambiguously "safe" people for the test case -- e.g. the elderly, unambiguously law abiding and moral, African American gentleman in Chicago used for the recent 2A case McDonald vs. Chicago, or the same with Heller vs. DC.
I am pretty sure no one expected search warrants when this all started. If it was expected that the FBI and local law enforcement would get involved, an academic security researcher would have been a far better spokesman.
I'm not saying that that cranks shouldn't be defended when their rights are violated or that his claims are false. But he's certainly not helping his credibility with his disorganized, rambling writing, and his juvenile website, etc. It makes it so that my immediate inclination reading this is to suspect that most of it is wildly exaggerated.