What is James Comey thinking right now?
| kink-friendly cuckold | 11/09/16 | | thriller hissy fit stage | 11/09/16 | | High-end lay | 11/24/25 | | High-end lay | 11/24/25 | | High-end lay | 11/24/25 | | High-end lay | 11/24/25 | | High-end lay | 11/26/25 | | self-absorbed turdskin area | 11/26/25 | | High-end lay | 11/26/25 | | High-end lay | 11/27/25 | | High-end lay | 11/27/25 | | nyuug | 12/01/25 | | nyuug | 12/02/25 | | nyuug | 12/03/25 | | nyuug | 12/04/25 | | nyuug | 12/05/25 | | nyuug | 12/07/25 | | Hateful space private investor | 11/24/25 | | histrionic submissive resort elastic band | 11/26/25 | | boyish judgmental parlour | 11/27/25 | | greedy crackhouse | 11/24/25 | | self-absorbed turdskin area | 11/26/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: November 27th, 2025 10:35 PM Author: boyish judgmental parlour
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\u0026mark_id=5309378#49466883) |
|
|