I have never claimed my damages occurred in 2003-2005, that is when the illegal property redevelopment was going on. My allegations of conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law began in 2005 with the most recent occurring in April 2017. If anyone actually felt they had a duty to actually read my complaint there would be no mistaking of timelines. But in this case we rely on what someone who was not interested in the first place tell their version of the story to a third party. That is hearsay, which is not evidence that is allowed in court or in any reasonable investigation. Mr. VanderSchel, how about I send a copy of my complaint directly to you. You read the entire complaint and then you may be more able to base a decision on what the complaint states. Your information is incorrect. I should not have to continue to beg for justice based on people being misinformed as to that the evidence supports.
I contacted Senator Grassley in 2007, he forwarded my information to the FBI. Are you telling me it has taken 11 years for my case to get from the Senator to the hands of the US attorney and the information is not based on the information in the written complaint I submitted to the local FBI agent. This local agent told me 3 different versions of what would happen after I submitted my complaint to him. I do not have any evidence that he even submitted my written complaint. I have evidence that the most recent act of conspiracy happened in April 2017 well within the statute of limitations. I have not been negligent in anyway of not submitting timely complaints. How in the hell does it take 11 years for a complaint to get from a Senator to a US Attorney.
Somebody has some splanin to do. Where is the written complaint I submitted to the local FBI?
652. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).
An individual’s “withdrawal” from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. “Withdrawal” from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).