@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.
Pinned
@nkorpett.bsky.social @rparloff.bsky.social & James Pearce, does the appeal divest Judge N of jurisdiction to decide the separate issues of vindictive prosecution, "no indictment," "fundamentally ambiguous" questioning by Cruz, etc. because of Judge C's unrelated order disqualifying Halligan?
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...
DOJ Flouts Court Order on Trump’s Illegally Installed Attorney newrepublic.com/post/203649/... via @newrepublic.com
DOJ Flouts Court Order on Trump’s Illegally Installed Attorney
A judge ruled Lindsey Halligan was unconstitutionally appointed. Donald Trump’s team doesn’t care.
newrepublic.com
November 25, 2025 at 6:52 PM
DOJ Flouts Court Order on Trump’s Illegally Installed Attorney newrepublic.com/post/203649/... via @newrepublic.com
@nkorpett.bsky.social @rparloff.bsky.social & James Pearce, does the appeal divest Judge N of jurisdiction to decide the separate issues of vindictive prosecution, "no indictment," "fundamentally ambiguous" questioning by Cruz, etc. because of Judge C's unrelated order disqualifying Halligan?
November 25, 2025 at 1:31 AM
@nkorpett.bsky.social @rparloff.bsky.social & James Pearce, does the appeal divest Judge N of jurisdiction to decide the separate issues of vindictive prosecution, "no indictment," "fundamentally ambiguous" questioning by Cruz, etc. because of Judge C's unrelated order disqualifying Halligan?
Griggs rule (Judge N divested from deciding only "those aspects of the case involved in the appeal" -> disqualification of Halligan) or Coinbase rule (divestiture if the "entire case is essentially involved in the appeal"). Can Judge N rule on vindictive prosecution?
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
November 24, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Griggs rule (Judge N divested from deciding only "those aspects of the case involved in the appeal" -> disqualification of Halligan) or Coinbase rule (divestiture if the "entire case is essentially involved in the appeal"). Can Judge N rule on vindictive prosecution?
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Dismissed w/o prejudice. Can the govt seek to reindict since, as of today, the statute of limitations has expired. Does the govt have a statutory "grace period" to reindict? Also, any reindictment can't be by Halligan unless decision reversed on appeal.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com
November 24, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Dismissed w/o prejudice. Can the govt seek to reindict since, as of today, the statute of limitations has expired. Does the govt have a statutory "grace period" to reindict? Also, any reindictment can't be by Halligan unless decision reversed on appeal.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Evidentiary hearing held to determine if, in fact, a grand jury returned a "true bill." That's what I am recommending the court do in the @jamescomey.bsky.social prosecution -- evidentiary hearing to determine exactly what grand jurors did, and didn't, do.
scholar.google.com/scholar_case...
scholar.google.com/scholar_case...
November 23, 2025 at 1:52 AM
Evidentiary hearing held to determine if, in fact, a grand jury returned a "true bill." That's what I am recommending the court do in the @jamescomey.bsky.social prosecution -- evidentiary hearing to determine exactly what grand jurors did, and didn't, do.
scholar.google.com/scholar_case...
scholar.google.com/scholar_case...
1. Does the record as it currently exists establish that at least 12 grand jurors voted to indict @jamescomey.bsky.social of the two crimes set forth in the operative indictment? If the record is ambiguous on this issue, should the court (1) dismiss the case; (2) hold an evidentiary hearing and
November 22, 2025 at 7:16 PM
1. Does the record as it currently exists establish that at least 12 grand jurors voted to indict @jamescomey.bsky.social of the two crimes set forth in the operative indictment? If the record is ambiguous on this issue, should the court (1) dismiss the case; (2) hold an evidentiary hearing and
Is there "grave doubt" that any (purported) decision to indict was "substantially influenced" by Halligan's misconduct?
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
#211 in United States v. Comey (E.D. Va., 1:25-cr-00272) – CourtListener.com
MOTION to Dismiss Indictment based on Fifth Amendment, Rule 6, and Grand Jury Violations by James B. Comey, Jr. (Carmichael, Jessica) (Entered: 11/21/2025)
storage.courtlistener.com
November 21, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Is there "grave doubt" that any (purported) decision to indict was "substantially influenced" by Halligan's misconduct?
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
If you think that the Epstein records are going to be publicly released anytime soon, think again.
Trump’s reversal on the House Epstein records vote does not foreclose other avenues he can use to limit or delay disclosure, and the preservation of records remains an open question. Bob Bauer explains: www.execfunctions.org/p/after-a-st...
After a Strategic Retreat, Trump Has Many Moves Left to Prevent Release of the Epstein Records
After the House vote, he can resume playing hardball—and the preservation of the records during this fight is a real question.
www.execfunctions.org
November 21, 2025 at 7:00 PM
If you think that the Epstein records are going to be publicly released anytime soon, think again.
Utter Incompetence; Putrid Malice; and Unbridled Arrogance all wrapped in one "Stalking Horse" Hack. Career prosecutors throughout the country must be laughing uncontrollably as this moron, oblivious to realty, digs a deeper and deeper hole of infamy for herself.
"In the end, why would Halligan bother to learn how to do her actual job? She’s in this role to prosecute Trump's enemies. She has no qualms about unethical behavior, and no reservations about bringing charges when no one else will. She’s the perfect vessel for Trump’s rage." — @snipy.bsky.social
Lindsey Halligan's bad bad week
Look out, Lionel Hutz.
www.publicnotice.co
November 21, 2025 at 6:37 PM
Utter Incompetence; Putrid Malice; and Unbridled Arrogance all wrapped in one "Stalking Horse" Hack. Career prosecutors throughout the country must be laughing uncontrollably as this moron, oblivious to realty, digs a deeper and deeper hole of infamy for herself.
The length of the deliberations in relation to the length of Halligan's presentation is important in determining if Halligan's errors and misconduct were harmless or not.
November 21, 2025 at 5:55 PM
The length of the deliberations in relation to the length of Halligan's presentation is important in determining if Halligan's errors and misconduct were harmless or not.
Yes @annabower.bsky.social more reasons that an evidentiary hearing with Halligan, grand jurors, and others testifying under oath and subject to cross-examination. That's the only way for the magistrate or district court judge to determine the truth.
This notice of "correction" is very lawyered.
- No affidavit or declaration by counsel seeking to amend, clarify, or correct representations they made to the court during yesterday's hearing
- No assertion that the full grand jury actually saw the 2-count charging document
- Etc.
- No affidavit or declaration by counsel seeking to amend, clarify, or correct representations they made to the court during yesterday's hearing
- No assertion that the full grand jury actually saw the 2-count charging document
- Etc.
This is nuts.
Yesterday in the Comey hearing, prosecutors *repeatedly* confirmed that the full grand jury never saw or voted on the two-count indictment.
Now they’re claiming the grand jury *did* vote on it.
Yesterday in the Comey hearing, prosecutors *repeatedly* confirmed that the full grand jury never saw or voted on the two-count indictment.
Now they’re claiming the grand jury *did* vote on it.
November 20, 2025 at 11:34 PM
Yes @annabower.bsky.social more reasons that an evidentiary hearing with Halligan, grand jurors, and others testifying under oath and subject to cross-examination. That's the only way for the magistrate or district court judge to determine the truth.
Was entire GJ required to actually have operative indictment in deliberation room even if they previously had the 3-ct indictment; 12 voted to indict on cts 2 & 3 which are identical to cts 1 & 2 in the operative indictment that all grand jurors never saw?
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
#206 in United States v. Comey (E.D. Va., 1:25-cr-00272) – CourtListener.com
NOTICE Correcting the Record by USA as to James B. Comey, Jr re 199 Motion Hearing,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - (Transcript, Dkt. NO, 10))(Diaz, Gabriel) (Entered: 11/20/2025)
storage.courtlistener.com
November 20, 2025 at 9:13 PM
Was entire GJ required to actually have operative indictment in deliberation room even if they previously had the 3-ct indictment; 12 voted to indict on cts 2 & 3 which are identical to cts 1 & 2 in the operative indictment that all grand jurors never saw?
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Were Cruz's questions "fundamentally" ambiguous as a matter of law (requiring dismissal of the indictment) or only "arguably" ambiguous (not permitting dismissal)?
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
#203 in United States v. Comey (E.D. Va., 1:25-cr-00272) – CourtListener.com
Reply by James B. Comey, Jr re 105 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment Based on Fundamental Ambiguity and Literal Truth (Carmichael, Jessica) (Entered: 11/20/2025)
storage.courtlistener.com
November 20, 2025 at 6:38 PM
Were Cruz's questions "fundamentally" ambiguous as a matter of law (requiring dismissal of the indictment) or only "arguably" ambiguous (not permitting dismissal)?
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Another suspicious event that, when coupled with the other events disclosed at today's hearing, require an evidentiary hearing where Halligan and grand jurors (especially the foreperson) must testify so the judge can obtain a truthful account of what led to the purported indictment.
Also: I still don’t understand what’s going on here!
Huh??? 🧐
Huh??? 🧐
November 20, 2025 at 4:53 AM
Another suspicious event that, when coupled with the other events disclosed at today's hearing, require an evidentiary hearing where Halligan and grand jurors (especially the foreperson) must testify so the judge can obtain a truthful account of what led to the purported indictment.
@annabower.bsky.social why would the magistrate have directed the foreperson to add the "Count 1 only" notation? Who wrote in blue ink?
This is what I’m talking about.
The magistrate was handed the original 3-count indictment along w/ report stating that 12+ jurors failed to concur “in finding an indictment in this case.”
Nothing indicated that the no bill was only Count 1. The foreperson added notation at magistrate direction.
The magistrate was handed the original 3-count indictment along w/ report stating that 12+ jurors failed to concur “in finding an indictment in this case.”
Nothing indicated that the no bill was only Count 1. The foreperson added notation at magistrate direction.
November 20, 2025 at 1:46 AM
@annabower.bsky.social why would the magistrate have directed the foreperson to add the "Count 1 only" notation? Who wrote in blue ink?
@annabower.bsky.social
Did 12 grand jurors ever vote to indict Comey on the two counts? If that question can't be answered on the current record, a hearing where the grand jurors were questioned may be required. Similar to when trial jurors are questioned regarding potential juror misconduct.
Did 12 grand jurors ever vote to indict Comey on the two counts? If that question can't be answered on the current record, a hearing where the grand jurors were questioned may be required. Similar to when trial jurors are questioned regarding potential juror misconduct.
The facts are complicated, but here’s a summary of what appears to have happened based on the filings and today’s hearing:
NEWS: During a hearing in federal court in VA, prosecutors confirmed that the operative indictment in the case against James Comey was never shown to or voted on by the entire grand jury before it was presented in open court.
Defense counsel argued that’s a complete bar to further prosecution
Defense counsel argued that’s a complete bar to further prosecution
November 19, 2025 at 7:27 PM
@annabower.bsky.social
Did 12 grand jurors ever vote to indict Comey on the two counts? If that question can't be answered on the current record, a hearing where the grand jurors were questioned may be required. Similar to when trial jurors are questioned regarding potential juror misconduct.
Did 12 grand jurors ever vote to indict Comey on the two counts? If that question can't be answered on the current record, a hearing where the grand jurors were questioned may be required. Similar to when trial jurors are questioned regarding potential juror misconduct.
The 2-count @jamescomey.bsky.social indictment is fatally flawed. Plus, Comey is entitled to the declination memo.
November 19, 2025 at 7:17 PM
The 2-count @jamescomey.bsky.social indictment is fatally flawed. Plus, Comey is entitled to the declination memo.
@lawrenceodonnelljr.bsky.social brilliant: "The Dictatorial Grip" has been broken.
November 19, 2025 at 3:25 AM
@lawrenceodonnelljr.bsky.social brilliant: "The Dictatorial Grip" has been broken.
What will SCOTUS do?
Whoa: A federal court just barred Texas from using its new congressional map, drawn by the GOP to target Dems.
"Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map."
Court says the old map must be used in 2026. Appeals are certain. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
"Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map."
Court says the old map must be used in 2026. Appeals are certain. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
November 18, 2025 at 7:01 PM
What will SCOTUS do?
"Outrageous government conduct" in violation of "fundamental fairness" required by the Due Process Clause = Dismissal of indictment against James. Solid motion by Abbe Lowell's team.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
#109 in United States v. James (E.D. Va., 2:25-cr-00122) – CourtListener.com
MOTION to Dismiss the Indictment for Outrageous Government Conduct and Memorandum in Support by Letitia A. James. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit ...
storage.courtlistener.com
November 18, 2025 at 6:36 PM
"Outrageous government conduct" in violation of "fundamental fairness" required by the Due Process Clause = Dismissal of indictment against James. Solid motion by Abbe Lowell's team.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
1. @mitchellepner.bsky.social & @klasfeldreports.com please explain how Comey's 4th Am. right not to be subjected to unreasonable search or seizure could have been violated by an unreasonable search or seizure of his attorney, Richman's devices? Can you cite a case where an indictment was dismissed
I appeared on Substack Live with @klasfeldreports.com to discuss the eleven (11) instances of prosecutorial misconduct that Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick held supported his decision to order the release of the full grand jury record to James Comey in United States v. Comey.
Judge ORDERS Comey grand jury records released to defense — Live with Mitchell Epner
A recording from Mitchell Epner and Adam Klasfeld's live video
mitchellepner.substack.com
November 18, 2025 at 6:26 AM
1. @mitchellepner.bsky.social & @klasfeldreports.com please explain how Comey's 4th Am. right not to be subjected to unreasonable search or seizure could have been violated by an unreasonable search or seizure of his attorney, Richman's devices? Can you cite a case where an indictment was dismissed
Obtaining dismissal of an indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct before a grand jury is a monumental uphill lift. Cumulatively, what "Stalking Horse" Hack Halligan did may be the virtually unheard of instance of a prosecutor engaging in serious misconduct requiring dismissal of the indictment.
November 18, 2025 at 5:08 AM
Obtaining dismissal of an indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct before a grand jury is a monumental uphill lift. Cumulatively, what "Stalking Horse" Hack Halligan did may be the virtually unheard of instance of a prosecutor engaging in serious misconduct requiring dismissal of the indictment.