What is James Comey thinking right now?
| Multi-colored Fluffy Boiling Water | 11/09/16 | | Poppy stage nibblets | 11/09/16 | | chocolate shivering ratface | 11/24/25 | | chocolate shivering ratface | 11/24/25 | | chocolate shivering ratface | 11/24/25 | | chocolate shivering ratface | 11/24/25 | | chocolate shivering ratface | 11/26/25 | | 180 metal point | 11/26/25 | | chocolate shivering ratface | 11/26/25 | | chocolate shivering ratface | 11/27/25 | | chocolate shivering ratface | 11/27/25 | | chocolate shivering ratface | 12/01/25 | | chocolate shivering ratface | 12/02/25 | | chocolate shivering ratface | 12/03/25 | | nyuug | 12/04/25 | | nyuug | 12/05/25 | | nyuug | 12/07/25 | | nyuug | 12/08/25 | | nyuug | 12/10/25 | | exhilarant university | 11/24/25 | | Swashbuckling coiffed plaza | 11/26/25 | | spectacular business firm double fault | 11/27/25 | | Tantric Property Circlehead | 11/24/25 | | 180 metal point | 11/26/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: November 27th, 2025 10:35 PM Author: spectacular business firm double fault
No. The Judge addressed this in the order of dismissal:
Generally, “[t]he return of an indictment tolls the statute of limitations on the charges contained in the indictment.” United States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1109 (4th Cir. 2021). “An invalid indictment,” however, “cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed.” United States v. Crysopt Corp., 781 F. Supp. 375, 378 (D. Md. 1991) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Gillespie, 666 F. Supp. 1137, 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (“[A] valid indictment insulates from statute-of-limitations problems any refiling of the same charges during the pendency of that valid indictment (that is, the superseding of a valid indictment). But if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result.” (emphasis in original)).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3419727&forum_id=2,#49466883) |
|
|