What is James Comey thinking right now?
| Misunderstood Startling Voyeur Toilet Seat | 11/09/16 | | amethyst vivacious sandwich menage | 11/09/16 | | Exhilarant people who are hurt water buffalo | 11/24/25 | | Exhilarant people who are hurt water buffalo | 11/24/25 | | Exhilarant people who are hurt water buffalo | 11/24/25 | | Exhilarant people who are hurt water buffalo | 11/24/25 | | Exhilarant people who are hurt water buffalo | 11/26/25 | | vengeful codepig | 11/26/25 | | Exhilarant people who are hurt water buffalo | 11/26/25 | | Exhilarant people who are hurt water buffalo | 11/27/25 | | Exhilarant people who are hurt water buffalo | 11/27/25 | | nyuug | 12/01/25 | | nyuug | 12/02/25 | | nyuug | 12/03/25 | | nyuug | 12/04/25 | | nyuug | 12/05/25 | | Appetizing cream shrine fortuitous meteor | 11/24/25 | | 180 Maize Rehab | 11/26/25 | | aromatic regret base | 11/27/25 | | Vigorous Ebony Trailer Park | 11/24/25 | | vengeful codepig | 11/26/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: November 27th, 2025 10:35 PM Author: aromatic regret base
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\u0026show=week",#49466883) |
|
|