A summary of documents turned over by IPPC Technologies to CopBlaster.com's defense them in 2017 exposed a conspiracy by a gang that couldn't collude straight. That gang included U.S. Probation Officer (USPO) Matthew Preuitt, IPPC Technologies staff, IPPC Technologies President Judy Hogaboom, and possibly U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez. The collusion amounted to an unlawful delegation of authority in which Preuitt was able to enforce conditions of release that did not exist and/or mislead IPPC into thinking that they existed. Whether or not Preuitt discussed these activities with Judge Hernandez or not is irrelevant because only the judge has the authority to create or modify conditions of release (see 18 U.S.C. 3583). When those conditions are created they cannot be modified without a hearing, so if Preuitt went to Hernandez for guidance on this and was told to enforce the conditions as if more were included, that still would not be lawful.
As this screenshot and the uploaded notes show, the CopBlaster's defense team noticed that Preuitt was instructing IPPC that his conditions said he could not "use the internet to post harmful content about others" or use technology "for malfeasance" when in fact he was only prohibited from contacting a few people, operating old websites of his, operating similar websites, or using unmonitored computers. Even if Judge Hernandez told Preuitt in private that that was his intent behind the conditions that would not have changed the fact that he did not write the conditions in a way that prohibited the activity he disliked. As a result of Preuitt unlawfully delegating the authority to modify or create release conditions to himself, he made IPPC think that they had the right to block the Cop Blaster from writing negative reviews about them or anyone on any website. When he started posting about how IPPC software screwed up his computer he found himself blocked from pages about their company or their owner Judy Hogaboom. As the summary of the evidence makes clear Hogaboom was involved in this and worked with Preuitt to censor the Cop Blaster's speech online without authorization from the court. She also sent complaints to probation about his complaint.
The records also show that IPPC monitored privileged communications with his lawyer and sent those emails to probation.
Even if IPPC were not working with Preuitt in this way the Cop Blaster still would have been justified in disabling IPPC Impulse Control because it was using most of his CPU resources. That was the issue of dispute in the first place (https://copblaster.com/blast/48/how-to-disable-internet-probation-and-parole-control-software). IPPC damaged the Cop Blaster's computer and he had to disable Impulse Control to use the computer. Rather than respond appropriately USPO Preuitt demanded that the Cop Blaster not use the internet. An appropriate response would have began with an apology for what the software did followed by an instruction to use an different program or statement allowing the Cop Blaster to stay online until a replacement program could be found.
At first the Cop Blaster's hearing was going to be done out of custody. His lawyer at the time was instructed to argue that he was not guilty of failing to participate in computer monitoring because no acceptable computer monitoring program was made available by probation. When he created CopBlaster.com Preuitt had him arrested. This was clearly a vindictive move made in retaliation for free speech. Lucky thing for Preuitt is that he had Judge Hernandez and Hernandez cares about results more than the law. Hernandez did not seem to care about the problems with IPPC. He only cared about whatever computer the Cop Blaster used being monitored at all times and he cared about that so much that he would deny him access to the internet if a third party company at no fault of his own broke his computer. The Cop Blaster glad that Hernandez recused himself the next year.
The Cop Blaster can only upload a summary of the IPPC records prepared by his lawyer because Hernandez ordered his attorney not to give him actual copies of the records. This of course being a violation of both his constitutional right to see the evidence against him and his First Amendment right to disseminate it as he wishes.
The Cop Blaster is NOT a sex offender. This disclaimer is necessary because when most people think of computer crimes and computer monitoring, the first thing they think of is sex crimes against minor like kiddie porn or luring children for perverted activities. All the Cop Blaster did was sent an adult a threatening email, so treating him like a sexer just for using a computer was inappropriate.