What is James Comey thinking right now?
| cerebral adulterous prole trust fund | 11/09/16 | | Vivacious rambunctious lodge | 11/09/16 | | transparent wonderful sneaky criminal | 11/24/25 | | transparent wonderful sneaky criminal | 11/24/25 | | transparent wonderful sneaky criminal | 11/24/25 | | transparent wonderful sneaky criminal | 11/24/25 | | transparent wonderful sneaky criminal | 11/26/25 | | vibrant generalized bond | 11/26/25 | | transparent wonderful sneaky criminal | 11/26/25 | | nyuug | 11/27/25 | | nyuug | 11/27/25 | | nyuug | 12/01/25 | | nyuug | 12/02/25 | | nyuug | 12/03/25 | | Lake Theater Tattoo | 11/24/25 | | Thriller Affirmative Action | 11/26/25 | | .,,,.,,,.,:,..::,,...,:,...,:,,..:,.:.::,. | 11/27/25 | | talented drunken half-breed windowlicker | 11/24/25 | | vibrant generalized bond | 11/26/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: November 27th, 2025 10:35 PM
Author: .,,,.,,,.,:,..::,,...,:,...,:,,..:,.:.::,.
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) |
|
|