You seem angry.

LOL. Delete to deflect. Haha

The pro-prosecution argument on statute of limitations is twofold:

1) Cuomo tolled the statute of limitations for a period of time during Covid. Here is an article discussing that.
https://natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tolling-new-york-statutes-limitation-has-ended-what-did-it

2) New York law allows for tolling when a person is out of state, which Trump was.

I have no doubt this will be further argued on appeal if necessary.

dajo9 said:

---

The pro-prosecution argument on statute of limitations is twofold:

1) Cuomo tolled the statute of limitations for a period of time during Covid. Here is an article discussing that.
https://natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tolling-new-york-statutes-limitation-has-ended-what-did-it

2) New York law allows for tolling when a person is out of state, which Trump was.

I have no doubt this will be further argued on appeal if necessary.

---

Thank you for the link. I finally found something...here's the indictment: https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

Notice the latest alleged crime occurred in December 2017. My recollection is these misdemeanor have a 2 year SOL, meaning the deadline to charge was December 2019. Cuomo's 1st Ex Order was signed in March 2020. It appears to me the SOL ran out and is unaffected by Cuomo's Ex Order.

dajo9 said:

---

The pro-prosecution argument on statute of limitations is twofold:
2) New York law allows for tolling when a person is out of state, which Trump was.

I have no doubt this will be further argued on appeal if necessary.

---

This one is interesting.

here is a NY lawyer's website explaining the provision: https://www.sellonilaw.com/criminal-procedure/statute-of-limitations/

CPL Section 30.10(4) provides that when calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:
(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which (i) the defendant was continuously outside this state or (ii) the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence. However, in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.

Notice the bolded word.

Here's a 2017 article stating that Trump was in NY for at least 24 days (most likely nights) during the 1st year of his presidency: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/how-much-time-trump-spending-trump-properties-n753366

This strikes me as a provision where some attorneys are going to make money arguing. Also, I really wish I could find pleadings for this criminal case because I cannot imagine this issue wasn't raised in pre-trial motions. There has to be case law on point and the judge should have referenced it in issuing his decisions.

Pretty cool that you now want him to get off on whatever technicalities you may find.
There is no argument of his innocence.

We ALL KNOW that he:

Porked both Stormy and Karen. While married.
Paid both off in order to silence them for the election.
Contracted Red Finch to skew results of an online poll to favor him. Cheating.
Wanted to hide all of this by distancing himself personally from it. He paid double to disguise is as legal services by Cohen rather than repayment for services rendered.
He did not testify, AGAIN.
Is a liar scumbag whose body will rot and disintegrate upon his death. At 77 years old, his end is coming. Yipee!

concordtom said:

---

Pretty cool that you now want him to get off on whatever technicalities you may find.
There is no argument of his innocence.

We ALL KNOW that he:

Porked both Stormy and Karen. While married.
Paid both off in order to silence them for the election.
Contracted Red Finch to skew results of an online poll to favor him. Cheating.
Wanted to hide all of this by distancing himself personally from it. He paid double to disguise is as legal services by Cohen rather than repayment for services rendered.
He did not testify, AGAIN.
Is a liar scumbag whose body will rot and disintegrate upon his death. At 77 years old, his end is coming. Yipee!

---

See my sentence saying this is not about Trump.

I do not believe in the concept of "technicalities." All valid laws matter. "Technicalities" are what one side calls any law that is inconvenient to their core beliefs (that is a general observation, not a statement direct especially at you).

We are discussing criminal acts, not just being a vile and disgusting person. Your list:

Porked both Stormy and Karen. While married. NOT CRIMINAL
Paid both off in order to silence them for the election. IGNORES FACTS IN EVIDENCE - HIDING IT FROM HIS WIFE; NOT CRIMINAL
Contracted Red Finch to skew results of an online poll to favor him. Cheating. NOT CRIMINAL
Wanted to hide all of this by distancing himself personally from it. He paid double to disguise is as legal services by Cohen rather than repayment for services rendered. THE CRIMINALITY OF THESE ACTS IS IN QUESTION.
He did not testify THIS IS A SACRED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

dajo9 said:

---

The pro-prosecution argument on statute of limitations is twofold:

2) New York law allows for tolling when a person is out of state, which Trump was.

I have no doubt this will be further argued on appeal if necessary.

---

A little internet sleuthing confirms this could be a money maker for attorneys...

There is a particular case that interprets the statute: People v Knoppel. Defendant claimed the timeline didn't toll because he intermittently returned to the state. Here are the money lines:

"The focus of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10 is "the difficulty of apprehending a defendant who is outside the State" (People v Seda, 93 NY2d 307, 312). Thus, all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations."

Trump lawyers would focus on the 1st bolded sentence - he was arguably the easiest defendant to find and apprehend ever.

Prosecutors would rely on the totality of the holding and especially that last bolded line.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Prosecutors would rely on the totality of the holding and especially that last bolded line.

---

Yeah, it's typically the "totality of the holding" that matters. You know what the rest is called.

WalterSobchak said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Prosecutors would rely on the totality of the holding and especially that last bolded line.

---

Yeah, it's typically the "totality of the holding" that matters. You know what the rest is called.

---

Of course. But this is a little unique with the one sentence holding having an explicit preceding sentence giving a particular justification that is uniquely beneficial to this defendant.

Ok I found the case. It's Knobel not Knoppel. People v. Knobel, 94 N.Y.2d 226 (N.Y. 1999). The facts are pretty analogous IMHO. As you say it clearly establishes that "continuous" doesn't mean "entirely" or "exclusively." It is also clear that in both cases the issue was delay linking the defendant to the crime, not locating and serving the defendant after this link had been established. I also think the key word in the passage you quoted is "thus" which links the two sentences rather than leaving open any reasonable interpretation that there's a separate standard where the defendant's whereabouts are known. Again, the issue in both is the facts linking the defendant to the underlying crime coming to light. There is no viable SOL issue for Trump based on this precedent.

Holding:

Quote:

---

We conclude that because defendant, a nonresident, remained, during legally significant periods of time, continuously outside the State within the meaning of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i), the instant prosecution was timely commenced, and the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

---

Relevant Dicta:

Quote:

---

The People urge that the indictment was proper because the Statute of Limitations was tolled during all periods defendant was "continuously outside" the State. For an absence from the State to be "continuous" within the meaning of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i), the People argue, it need not be a single uninterrupted period of time. We agree. The focus of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10 is "the difficulty of apprehending a defendant who is outside the State" (People v. Seda, 93 N.Y.2d 307, 312). Thus, all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations.

---

Analogous Facts:

Quote:

---

During the fall of 1995, defendant's wife returned to New York to reside, while defendant remained in Virginia. The couple was divorced the following year. In November 1997, following a child custody determination, defendant's ex-wife contacted the police and furnished evidence linking defendant to the unsolved 1988 crime. Based upon the information she and others provided, defendant was indicted, on February 24, 1998, for criminal mischief in the first degree (Penal Law 145.12) and arson in the third degree (Penal Law 150.10), a class B and C felony respectively.

---

Quote:

---

At a hearing, [defendant] maintained that between 1992 and 1997, he frequently returned to New York for business and personal reasons, including a child custody arrangement and visits with his parents. Defendant presented evidence that he had been in New York on 114 specific days between 1992 and 1997.

---

Quote:

---

It is undisputed that the People did not commence their prosecution of defendant until roughly a decade after the criminal incident, far exceeding the five years allowed them under the Criminal Procedure Law (see, CPL 30.10(b)). Thus, unless the People can establish that at least a part of that period was tolled, prosecution of this case is time-barred.

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Ok I found the case. It's Knobel not Knoppel. People v. Knobel, 94 N.Y.2d 226 (N.Y. 1999). The facts are pretty analogous IMHO. As you say it clearly establishes that "continuous" doesn't mean "entirely" or "exclusively." It is also clear that in both cases the issue was delay linking the defendant to the crime, not locating and serving the defendant after this link had been established. I also think the key word in the passage you quoted is "thus" which links the two sentences rather than leaving open any reasonable interpretation that there's a separate standard where the defendant's whereabouts are known. Again, the issue in both is the facts linking the defendant to the underlying crime coming to light. There is no viable SOL issue for Trump based on this precedent.

Holding:

Quote:

---

We conclude that because defendant, a nonresident, remained, during legally significant periods of time, continuously outside the State within the meaning of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i), the instant prosecution was timely commenced, and the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

---

Relevant Dicta:

Quote:

---

The People urge that the indictment was proper because the Statute of Limitations was tolled during all periods defendant was "continuously outside" the State. For an absence from the State to be "continuous" within the meaning of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i), the People argue, it need not be a single uninterrupted period of time. We agree. The focus of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10 is "the difficulty of apprehending a defendant who is outside the State" (People v. Seda, 93 N.Y.2d 307, 312). Thus, all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations.

---

Analogous Facts:

Quote:

---

During the fall of 1995, defendant's wife returned to New York to reside, while defendant remained in Virginia. The couple was divorced the following year. In November 1997, following a child custody determination, defendant's ex-wife contacted the police and furnished evidence linking defendant to the unsolved 1988 crime. Based upon the information she and others provided, defendant was indicted, on February 24, 1998, for criminal mischief in the first degree (Penal Law 145.12) and arson in the third degree (Penal Law 150.10), a class B and C felony respectively.

---

Quote:

---

At a hearing, [defendant] maintained that between 1992 and 1997, he frequently returned to New York for business and personal reasons, including a child custody arrangement and visits with his parents. Defendant presented evidence that he had been in New York on 114 specific days between 1992 and 1997.

---

Quote:

---

It is undisputed that the People did not commence their prosecution of defendant until roughly a decade after the criminal incident, far exceeding the five years allowed them under the Criminal Procedure Law (see, CPL 30.10(b)). Thus, unless the People can establish that at least a part of that period was tolled, prosecution of this case is time-barred.

---

---

That's a lot of words. Here's my take - a Republican appointed judge will side with Trump and a Democratic appointed judge will rule against him.

Thankfully it's actually a very succinct and straightforward opinion compared to most.

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Pretty cool that you now want him to get off on whatever technicalities you may find.
There is no argument of his innocence.

We ALL KNOW that he:

Porked both Stormy and Karen. While married.
Paid both off in order to silence them for the election.
Contracted Red Finch to skew results of an online poll to favor him. Cheating.
Wanted to hide all of this by distancing himself personally from it. He paid double to disguise is as legal services by Cohen rather than repayment for services rendered.
He did not testify, AGAIN.
Is a liar scumbag whose body will rot and disintegrate upon his death. At 77 years old, his end is coming. Yipee!

---

See my sentence saying this is not about Trump.

I do not believe in the concept of "technicalities." All valid laws matter. "Technicalities" are what one side calls any law that is inconvenient to their core beliefs (that is a general observation, not a statement direct especially at you).

We are discussing criminal acts, not just being a vile and disgusting person. Your list:

Porked both Stormy and Karen. While married. NOT CRIMINAL
Paid both off in order to silence them for the election. IGNORES FACTS IN EVIDENCE - HIDING IT FROM HIS WIFE; NOT CRIMINAL
Contracted Red Finch to skew results of an online poll to favor him. Cheating. NOT CRIMINAL
Wanted to hide all of this by distancing himself personally from it. He paid double to disguise is as legal services by Cohen rather than repayment for services rendered. THE CRIMINALITY OF THESE ACTS IS IN QUESTION.
He did not testify THIS IS A SACRED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

---

What about an Insurrection rally at the Capitol. Is that against the law?
Not that he's on trial for that, or for porking hookers. I just wanna know what you think.
Have you ever had sex with a playboy bunny, a porn star, or a hooker? He offered to pay, so he thought she was.
I just wanna know who I'm talking to.

Tell us again how you don't actually like Trump?

By the way, I spelled out reasons I thought he was guilty ad nauseam yesterday. My above statement about "we know he porked.... etc etc etc" was just me pointing out what we all know - it was not my reason for finding him guilty, lest you think it was.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Thankfully it's actually a very succinct and straightforward opinion compared to most.

---

In legalspeak, it may be a succinct and straightforward opinion. But I can do it one better:

Trump sucks!