Time limits for fed crimes...

[Leenkat]

What is the name of your state? Florida. My question is this please, if the FEDs started a undercover project in the year 1989, for drugs, and wepons, and conspericy. It is my understanding that there are certin limits, as to the time a crime can be valid, I have read that the time it starts to run out is the date of harm, inother words that would have been the date they went undercover, because that is the date they discovered the crimes? and that date is the actuall date the harm took place, so wouldnt that be the year 1989.? the year the harm took place. So from 1989-2005 would be 15 years.The limits would have run out Correct??? a person(s) that was arested and sentenced in 2005 as a direct result of the undercover operation by the feds, which is fifteen years for the case, shouldnt have even been arrested ??? right...Superseading indightments were used but not till, the person wouldnt sign a plee,in 2005... and they were all of the same charges but the dates were changed .. what can you do or how can you prove the limitations ran out and the superseading indightments were only used because the time limit to bring case to trial was over, so the feds and the US proscuter used the superseading indightments to get a plee. it is my understanding --The statute of limations starts to run When the right to take legal action arises,or when it is commited... (date feds went undercover 89) The unexcused failure to start a case on time bars a court from hearing the case. If I am not mistaking or maybe I am, but doesnt that violiate ones constitional rights, ?

 

[smutlydog]

What is the name of your state? Florida. My question is this please, if the FEDs started a undercover project in the year 1989, for drugs, and wepons, and conspericy. It is my understanding that there are certin limits, as to the time a crime can be valid, I have read that the time it starts to run out is the date of harm, inother words that would have been the date they went undercover, because that is the date they discovered the crimes? and that date is the actuall date the harm took place, so wouldnt that be the year 1989.? the year the harm took place. So from 1989-2005 would be 15 years.The limits would have run out Correct??? a person(s) that was arested and sentenced in 2005 as a direct result of the undercover operation by the feds, which is fifteen years for the case, shouldnt have even been arrested ??? right...Superseading indightments were used but not till, the person wouldnt sign a plee,in 2005... and they were all of the same charges but the dates were changed .. what can you do or how can you prove the limitations ran out and the superseading indightments were only used because the time limit to bring case to trial was over, so the feds and the US proscuter used the superseading indightments to get a plee. it is my understanding --The statute of limations starts to run When the right to take legal action arises,or when it is commited... (date feds went undercover 89) The unexcused failure to start a case on time bars a court from hearing the case. If I am not mistaking or maybe I am, but doesnt that violiate ones constitional rights, ?

I think the statue of limitation is 7 years but the feds wouldn't have filed the case unless they found a way around this obstacle. For example, if someone made $1000,000 in 1989 selling drugs and they spent $200,000 a year for 5 years.The feds would start the 7 year clock in 1995.I could be wrong but that is my understanding of how it works. The feds have a 94% conviction rate so if the case has already been filed you have 6% chance of walking away from this. That's if you choose to fight it.

Go to the federal section of prisontalk.com for more information