@alegalnerd.bsky.social
Attorney w/42 years experience primarily in criminal law and procedure and constitutional law. 100+ jury trials to verdict, including capital cases. 1000s of motions and briefs, in state and federal court at trial and appellate level.
I agree: 4th & SCOTUS. But even if reversed, on remand, dismissal w/prejudice for vindictive prosecution. Case against @jamescomey.bsky.social is for all practical purposes dead. As I said from the outset, he would never be tried.
November 26, 2025 at 5:09 PM
I agree: 4th & SCOTUS. But even if reversed, on remand, dismissal w/prejudice for vindictive prosecution. Case against @jamescomey.bsky.social is for all practical purposes dead. As I said from the outset, he would never be tried.
Reposted
Note also that Comey's lawyers have argued that DOJ is wrong as to 18 U.S.C. 3288's applicability here. From their reply: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
![In any event, Section 3288 would not allow the government to reindict Mr. Comey if the
indictment were dismissed. The grace period is triggered only if an "indictment is found," 18
U.S.C. § 3282; but here, the purported indictment was void ab initio. And the government cannot
"grant itself a six-month extension of the statute of limitations... simply by filing a patently defective and meaningless charging document." United States v. Gatz, 704 F. Supp. 3d 1317, 1330
(S.D. Fla. 2023). Moreover, Section 3288 states that "[t]his section does not permit the filing of a new indictment... where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment ... within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution." Id. (emphasis added). That proviso applies here. Using an illegal appointment to procure an indictment days before the statute of limitations expires thus depriving a person of repose—is precisely the type of "reason" that must "bar a new prosecution"
under Section 3288.
Indeed, Section 3288 expressly precludes reindictment when the first
indictment was filed after expiration of the statute of limitations. To give that provision meaning, the statute must also bar new prosecutions when a void purported indictment is secured simply to
prevent the statute of limitations from expiring. Any other reading would "obliterate the statute
of limitations." United States v. Clawson, 104 F.3d 250, 252 (9th Cir. 1996).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreifq2zipxzqczadwskjunweexi2mlfvgsf4udfivmnjuhedrpqoxu4@jpeg)
November 24, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Note also that Comey's lawyers have argued that DOJ is wrong as to 18 U.S.C. 3288's applicability here. From their reply: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Comey was never indicted. The purported indictment was "void ab initio." The 3288 grace period to seek to re-indict is inapplicable as a matter of law. The statute of limitations has expired and it hasn't been tolled and can't be revived.
November 26, 2025 at 12:53 AM
Comey was never indicted. The purported indictment was "void ab initio." The 3288 grace period to seek to re-indict is inapplicable as a matter of law. The statute of limitations has expired and it hasn't been tolled and can't be revived.
Yes. As I stated yesterday, @jamescomey.bsky.social hasn't been indicted. If Trump/Bondi/Halligan try to indict him for the same two crimes, any indictment will be dismissed because the statute of limitations has expired. 3288 is inapplicable because there never was an indictment of Comey w/in SOL.
November 26, 2025 at 12:47 AM
Yes. As I stated yesterday, @jamescomey.bsky.social hasn't been indicted. If Trump/Bondi/Halligan try to indict him for the same two crimes, any indictment will be dismissed because the statute of limitations has expired. 3288 is inapplicable because there never was an indictment of Comey w/in SOL.
Theoretically possible. Realistically, not likely.
November 25, 2025 at 2:49 AM
Theoretically possible. Realistically, not likely.
No. Absolute prosecutor immunity. Imbler.
November 25, 2025 at 1:40 AM
No. Absolute prosecutor immunity. Imbler.
Does NofA divest Judge N of jurisdiction to rule on vindictive prosecution motion under these unique facts? if yes, ot will be while before Comey can be free and clear on this persecution. SCOTUS review. If not, Judge N dismissal w/prejudice bc vindictive prosecution. With appeal to follow.
November 24, 2025 at 9:45 PM
Does NofA divest Judge N of jurisdiction to rule on vindictive prosecution motion under these unique facts? if yes, ot will be while before Comey can be free and clear on this persecution. SCOTUS review. If not, Judge N dismissal w/prejudice bc vindictive prosecution. With appeal to follow.
Her order = Halligan & her indictment gone. But, since wo/prejudice, govt can try and get properly appointed prosecutor and seek a new indictment if 3288 "grace period" applies. Or govt can appeal & seek stay. Maybe do both simultaneously?
November 24, 2025 at 8:24 PM
Her order = Halligan & her indictment gone. But, since wo/prejudice, govt can try and get properly appointed prosecutor and seek a new indictment if 3288 "grace period" applies. Or govt can appeal & seek stay. Maybe do both simultaneously?
Not arguing or disagreeing. Just thinking through upcoming events and asking (again?) whether you agree.
November 24, 2025 at 8:20 PM
Not arguing or disagreeing. Just thinking through upcoming events and asking (again?) whether you agree.
Currie simply booted Halligan & negated her indictment. Ball back in govt's court to try and appoint new prosecutor; reindict; and litigate 3288/reindictment/SOL issue. Stay of order = Halligan remains until appeal finally decided. Whether Judge N can dismiss bc VP while appeal pending?
November 24, 2025 at 8:18 PM
Currie simply booted Halligan & negated her indictment. Ball back in govt's court to try and appoint new prosecutor; reindict; and litigate 3288/reindictment/SOL issue. Stay of order = Halligan remains until appeal finally decided. Whether Judge N can dismiss bc VP while appeal pending?
His tweet/post to Pam = Directive without using phrase "I direct you to get Comey."
November 24, 2025 at 8:07 PM
His tweet/post to Pam = Directive without using phrase "I direct you to get Comey."
DOJ = Trump = Nothing to do with Justice. Might as well be DOR = Dept of Revenge.
November 24, 2025 at 8:06 PM
DOJ = Trump = Nothing to do with Justice. Might as well be DOR = Dept of Revenge.
Trump's directive to lap dogs = Trump. My bet: He appeals removal of Halligan and seeks a stay pending appeal so that, even if stay denied, the persecution continues to hang over Comey's head for months until appeal finally decided by SCOTUS. It's all about revenge and punishment.
November 24, 2025 at 8:04 PM
Trump's directive to lap dogs = Trump. My bet: He appeals removal of Halligan and seeks a stay pending appeal so that, even if stay denied, the persecution continues to hang over Comey's head for months until appeal finally decided by SCOTUS. It's all about revenge and punishment.
Judge N: "In light of Judge Currie's order of dismissal without prejudice, what, if any, impact is there on this court's continuing jurisdiction to proceed with deciding pending motions for dismissal?"
November 24, 2025 at 7:59 PM
Judge N: "In light of Judge Currie's order of dismissal without prejudice, what, if any, impact is there on this court's continuing jurisdiction to proceed with deciding pending motions for dismissal?"
Since case was dismissed without prejudice that presumably means that the govt can try and get a replacement for Halligan and then reindict. If new indictment, 3288 issue would be litigated before judge assigned -- Judge N?
November 24, 2025 at 7:56 PM
Since case was dismissed without prejudice that presumably means that the govt can try and get a replacement for Halligan and then reindict. If new indictment, 3288 issue would be litigated before judge assigned -- Judge N?
If Trump/govt wants to continue with persecution of Comey & James it must either (1) get a new USA/prosecutor and then litigate the 3288/reindictment issue or (2) file notice of appeal and obtain a stay of Halligan removal order? What am I missing?
November 24, 2025 at 6:53 PM
If Trump/govt wants to continue with persecution of Comey & James it must either (1) get a new USA/prosecutor and then litigate the 3288/reindictment issue or (2) file notice of appeal and obtain a stay of Halligan removal order? What am I missing?
If govt files notice of appeal of dismissal, isn't Judge N prohibited from deciding the vindictive prosecution dismissal motion unless govt obtains a stay of Judge C's dismissal order?
November 24, 2025 at 6:43 PM
If govt files notice of appeal of dismissal, isn't Judge N prohibited from deciding the vindictive prosecution dismissal motion unless govt obtains a stay of Judge C's dismissal order?