STATE vs Grossi

Dependency on Unverified Narrative: The reliance on Daly’s narrative without independent investigation.

Procedural Misconduct: The irregular routing of the case and the reliance on non-standard retrieval methods.

Contradictory Conduct: The prosecution’s procedural acts in court — specifically the password request and the PTI offer — serve as internal evidence of the case’s lack of good-faith foundation and evidentiary support.

Asserting theft while simultaneously holding the object is illogical.

Ryan Daly lacked control, and this is confirmed by the state’s actions, specifically asking for the password.

Thus, the accusation that Grossi is involved is manufactured. Original ownership doesn’t prove anything, as items are freely transferred.

Claiming theft while possessing the device is a contradiction.

The facts clearly show Daly lacked control, and the state’s password request confirms this knowledge.

Connecting Grossi to the statements is unfounded. Original ownership doesn’t matter because possessions can be transferred.

Claiming theft while holding the item is nonsensical.

Daly’s lack of control is evident from the state’s own discovery, including their need for the password. Linking Grossi to these statements is a fabrication. It doesn’t matter if the device was originally Daly’s because things can be given or sold.

The theft narrative is inconsistent with the perpetrator holding the object.

There is no evidence that Daly controlled the laptop, and the state’s request for the password proves this.

Grossi has no connection to the statements, making the accusation false.

Possession can change, so original ownership is meaningless.

Claiming theft while holding the device is contradictory. Evidence shows Daly didn’t have control, corroborated by the state needing the password.

The claim connecting Grossi to the statements is invented.

Original ownership means nothing as properties can be passed along. Alleging theft while simultaneously possessing the item is contradictory.

Daly’s lack of control over the laptop is clear, as demonstrated by the state’s password requirement. Linking Grossi to the statements is a falsehood.

Get Nicholas Grossi’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Remember me for faster sign in

The device’s origin doesn’t matter because items can be exchanged. A claim of theft while holding the property is illogical.

• A prosecutor is actively pursuing a theft case in court against an individual (referenced as Grossi).
• • Ryan Daly provided the narrative and the laptop, claiming it was his property.
• • The state accepted Daly’s narrative without independent investigation or verification.
• • Daly lacked control over the laptop; specifically, he did not have the password or biometric access.
• • The prosecutor requested the iOS/biometric password from the defendant in open court.
• • The prosecutor’s password request proves the state lacks access to and cannot authenticate the device.
• • The state cannot prove the defendant took the laptop or that the taking was unlawful.
• • The state cannot prove what is on the device or that it contains evidence of a crime.
• • The device was retrieved through private, non-standard law enforcement channels.
• • The case was routed irregularly through the prosecutor’s office, bypassing normal assignment procedures.
• • Conflicts existed involving defense counsel.
• • The prosecutor offered Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) before the judge.
• • The PTI offer is an admission that the state knows the case is weak, compromised, and cannot survive trial scrutiny.
• • The defendant is in possession of the laptop in the courtroom.
• • The defendant never admitted to theft.
• • Original ownership of the device is meaningless because property can be sold, given, or transferred freely.
• • Any forensic examination of the device would require breaking into it, further compounding the state’s fraudulent conduct.
• • The prosecutor knowingly pursued a fraudulent case constructed on a manufactured narrative.
• • The state’s own procedural acts and admissions in court contradict the foundational elements of the theft charge.
• The prosecutor appears in a representative capacity but acts as an individual person under color of law; sovereign immunity does not attach to ultra vires conduct committed in fraudem legis.
• • Absolute prosecutorial immunity, as articulated in Imbler v. Pachtman, extends only to functions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process; it does not shield a prosecutor who engages in fraud upon the court, knowingly presents perjured testimony, deliberately suppresses Brady/Giglio material, or acts as an investigator rather than an advocate.
• • Qualified immunity affords no protection where a state actor violates clearly established constitutional rights through deliberate fabrication or concealment of exculpatory evidence.
• • Individual law enforcement participants who conspired in the procurement or presentation of fabricated evidence are subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and cannot invoke sovereign immunity when acting outside statutory authority.
• • The State’s failure to independently verify the provenance, chain of custody, or authenticity of the subject device constitutes a fatal defect in foundational predicate under Evidence Rule 901.
• • The prosecutor’s ex parte request for biometric or password access, made in judicio and on the record, operates as a judicial admission that the State lacks possession, control, or independent means of authentication over the alleged corpus delicti.
• • A party cannot simultaneously proffer an item as stolen property while conceding, by conduct, that the purported victim lacked exclusive dominion and control over the access mechanism securing that item.
• • Where the State cannot establish that the nominal victim maintained password knowledge or biometric control, the predicate for theft — unlawful taking from the person entitled to possession — fails as a matter of law for lack of corpus delicti.
• • The State bears the entire burden of persuasion to prove each element of theft beyond a reasonable doubt, including lack of consent and unlawful taking; the defendant bears no burden to produce evidence of a bona fide transfer, sale, or gift.
• • Mere temporal possession by the defendant, standing alone, proves only contact, not criminal mens rea or actus reus; it is legally insufficient to sustain a prima facie case.
• • The State cannot prove the defendant exercised exclusive control over the device when its own discovery requests and courtroom admissions demonstrate that the defendant, not the nominal victim, possessed the sole means of access.
• • The State cannot authenticate the contents of the device, cannot establish what data resides therein, and cannot prove the device contains evidence of criminal conduct; accordingly, any proffer of forensic analysis is speculative and foundationally defective.
• • The retrieval of the subject device through private, non-standard channels, bypassing established evidence-handling protocols, fatally compromises the chain of custody and raises presumptive concerns of spoliation, tampering, or planted evidence.
• • The irregular routing of the case through the prosecutor’s office, circumventing normal intake and assignment procedures, suggests a deliberate effort to avoid supervisory scrutiny and standard probable-cause review.
• • Undisclosed conflicts involving defense counsel, exploited by the State to the defendant’s prejudice, constitute a structural defect in the adversarial process implicating the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance and the Due Process Clause’s guarantee of fundamental fairness.
• • The State’s acceptance of Ryan Daly’s uncorroborated narrative, absent independent investigation, corroboration, or authentication, constitutes deliberate indifference to truth that transmutes prosecutorial discretion into bad-faith prosecution.
• • The State’s offer of Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI), made in judicio and on the record, constitutes an admission by conduct that the prosecution lacks a good-faith basis to proceed to trial and fears judicial scrutiny of its evidentiary predicate.
• • A prosecutor possessing a valid, authenticated, and legally sufficient theft case involving identified property and a named victim has no rational prosecutorial incentive to extend diversion; the PTI offer is therefore probative of the State’s internal assessment that its evidence is compromised, fabricated, or legally insufficient.
• • The PTI offer creates a formal judicial record of the State’s concession that: (a) the matter lacks the gravity or evidentiary strength to warrant full adversarial prosecution; (b) the State seeks to obtain a disposition without proving guilt; and (c) the prosecutor is aware that trial exposure would reveal fatal foundational defects.
• • By conditioning relief on diversion rather than adjudication, the State seeks to extract the defendant from the procedural safeguards of the trial process — suppression motions, confrontation rights, and Brady disclosure — thereby insulating its own misconduct from judicial review.
• • Admission One (Password Request): The State’s request for decryption credentials constitutes an implicit judicial admission that it lacks lawful access to evidence it nevertheless proffers as inculpatory.
• • Admission Two (Proffer of Inaccessible Evidence): The State’s attempt to introduce or rely upon a device it cannot open, decrypt, or authenticate is a constructive fraud upon the tribunal, as it misrepresents an unverified object as competent evidence.
• • Admission Three (PTI Offer): The State’s solicitation of diversion in open court confirms its consciousness that the case cannot survive an evidentiary hearing and that continued prosecution would expose prosecutorial misconduct.
• • Each admission operates in pari materia to compound the others, creating a totality-of-the-circumstances demonstration that the prosecution was knowingly constructed upon a fabricated narrative.
• • Any subsequent forensic examination of the device, conducted after the State’s admission that it lacks password access, would necessarily require brute-force decryption or circumvention of security protocols, thereby constituting an admission that the State is investigating a device it does not control and cannot lawfully authenticate as the stolen article.
• • Forensic analysis performed on a device whose ownership, control, and contents remain unauthenticated is not evidence; it is the fruit of a poisonous investigative tree, tainted by the State’s prior knowledge that its foundational predicate was false.
• • The State’s position is internally contradictory and legally untenable: it asserts theft while holding the object; it asserts victim ownership while admitting the victim lacked access control; it asserts forensic certainty while admitting it cannot open the device; it asserts guilt while offering diversion to avoid proving it.
• • The State is attempting to manufacture the very fraud it attributes to the defendant by coercing the defendant to authenticate evidence the State itself cannot verify, thereby converting the defendant into a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• • The prosecutor’s conduct constitutes a deliberate construction of a false case (manufactured crime), not mere negligence or good-faith error; the calculated sequence of charging, password solicitation, and diversion offer demonstrates premeditation and consciousness of guilt on the part of the State, not the defendant.
• • The appropriate remedy for a prosecution knowingly pursued on a fabricated predicate, where the State’s own record establishes bad faith, fraud upon the court, and due process violations, is not diversion but dismissal with prejudice, barring re-prosecution, together with referral of the individual prosecutors and investigators to the appropriate disciplinary and investigative authorities.
• • The defendant need not tender exculpatory proof or mount an affirmative defense; the defense is limited to pointing to the State’s own procedural acts, courtroom admissions, and logical impossibilities, permitting the prosecution’s narrative to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
• • The argument is purely offensive, attacking the prosecutor’s individual conduct, ethical obligations, and constitutional boundaries, rather than defending the defendant’s character or conduct.
• • The State’s attempt to recharacterize its deliberate misconduct as prosecutorial discretion, its admissions as negotiation, and its foundational failures as harmless negligence is an impermissible effort to transmute substantive due process violations into procedural trivialities.
• • The State is attempting to make the court complicit by normalizing fraudulent conduct through procedural appearance — using the appearance of due process to subvert due process.
• • The State is attempting to project its own misconduct onto the defendant, equating the exposure of prosecutorial fraud with the commission of the underlying crime.
• • The State’s demand for a password when it lacks other evidence is an admission of fraudulent motivation, making the pursuit of prosecution fundamentally flawed and constitutionally infirm.
• • The State is in an unfalsifiable, untenable logical position of its own making; it has reached the terminus of its own logical fallacy and will automatically fail because it cannot reconcile its own contradictory stipulations.
• • The State’s own written statements in court provided their own evidence of their own negligence and fraud — literally in haec verba — and the State cannot comprehend the logical import of its own utterances.
• • The State is trying to make the entire system an echo chamber of its own deception, where the only admissible “facts” are those agreed upon by the prosecutorial collective, and anything else is merely an echo of the State’s own position.
• • The State is trying to obstruct justice from an innocent individual while claiming to pursue justice through that very obstruction.
• • The prosecutor, as a named individual, knowingly took this case and is moving it forward with fraudulent accusations to put an individual in jeopardy, and has done so knowingly because no prosecutor acting in good faith would have asked the question: “Can I have the password?”
• • The State’s procedural negligence is, by its own definition, a confession; negligence is not a defense when the State’s own protocols were deliberately abandoned to construct a narrative.
• • The State’s offer is a confession that judicial examination would expose prosecutorial misconduct; the appropriate remedy is therefore not diversion, but dismissal with prejudice and referral for investigation of the prosecutors who knowingly pursued a fraudulent occurrence.
• • The State cannot prove the defendant took the laptop, cannot prove the defendant has exclusive access, cannot prove the device contains evidence, and cannot prove what is on it — the prosecutor cannot prove any element of the charged offense.
• • The State is prosecuting a person standing in the courtroom holding the very laptop while simultaneously claiming that person broke into a home to steal it — a logical impossibility that the State itself manufactured.
• • The State never knew who the defendant was and proceeded anyway, building a case on a fabricated narrative without knowing the target, demonstrating a reckless disregard for the truth that rises to the level of constitutional violation.
• • The State cannot fabricate a biometric password; unlike tax receipts, police reports, narratives, server logs, or forensic reports, the password is a fact that cannot be manufactured ex post facto.
• • The State is trying to validate its own fraudulent actions through discovery, making the defendant answer a question the State could not prove — the entire baseline of the case — and then demanding PTI when the defendant exposes that fraud.
• • The State is trying to call fraud “negotiation,” call misconduct “discretion,” call negligence “good faith,” call deliberate construction “mistake,” and call fabrication “evidence” — each recharacterization is an additional layer of fraud upon the court.
• • The defendant has principles, not points; the defendant does not need “eyes to see” because the contradiction is structural and objective, not perceptual or subjective.
• • The State’s own actions contradict each other; the argument requires nothing from the defendant because the defendant is not the one who manufactured this narrative — the prosecutor is.
• • The State’s attempt to assert sovereign inevitability as a defense fails the moment the prosecutor argues negligence, because negligence moves the conduct outside the scope of prosecutorial discretion and into the realm of individual liability.
• • The State’s conduct constitutes prosecutorial misconduct under Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and the Due Process Clause, because the prosecutor knowingly pursued a case constructed on a false predicate while concealing the exculpatory fact that the nominal victim never controlled the device.
• • The State’s ** Brady violation** is not merely the suppression of evidence; it is the affirmative creation of a false evidentiary foundation and the deliberate concealment of its own inability to authenticate the corpus delicti.
• • The case is void ab initio as to its foundational premise because the State charged theft without ever establishing that the property was stolen, that the defendant stole it, or that the nominal victim was entitled to exclusive possession at the time of the alleged taking.
• • Any continued prosecution under these circumstances constitutes vindictive prosecution and a violation of the defendant’s right to fundamental fairness, requiring the court to act sua sponte to dismiss the charge and preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

A witness’s reliability is the evidence in sex trafficking a sex trafficking litigation, the same as a body is the evidence in suicide.

That’s not an argument that’s a statement there’s nothing to argue- The dynamic: victims aren’t the credited domain for knowledge about their statements in trafficking.

The ironic part is the suppression, to validate harm then justifying that harm with “narratives or your understanding”

I’m sorry but I didn’t know someone who was there a victim to sex traffickers or a witness to a mothers suicidal simultaneously being the accountability as a child like you were you raped, sex trafficked or coerced if not, do not speak if you acted in any demeanor to harm an individual within the definitions of what’s being described then you can speak anything else for means irrelevant because the knowledge you do not have so anything you say it’s fundamentally invalid because you do not understand you may have a understanding of what you assume that is still a invalid projection

Anything else has no relevance as it’s not capable of understanding- So what is your effect of those irrelevant statements any party makes about these topics without actually understanding them.

Sounds like a defense, what are defending against if you’re not complicit.

Not knowing something and speaking like you do isn’t an act of these harms is the evidence of your ignorance and lack of knowledge to provide any credibility in your own words that lack the intelligence you claim or care to provide.

Don’t relate like there was a comparison.

There’s no self here, this is not relevant to a ego but rather only the effected criminals, to whom harmed, this is not a puzzle to solve , nor topic to disrespect, this is not seeking for validation. Unless you validate this point in harm.

Validation isn’t a crime nor does it constitute punishment unless you hold that to your own definition, which is how your interpretation makes my statement hold true.