Replies

FRiend, you are truly jumping the shark. I never said the discovery rule would not be applied, only that it will be applied in proper context to the general statutory framework and to the extant understanding of jurisdiction, not in the surreal vacuum you propose. You are contending for a phenomena that never, ever occurs in this type of case, eternal liability. You are hoping that those here on FR not trained in the law nor practitioners of the law will buy your context-free caricature of an interpretation because it suits your political agenda, not because it even remotely resembles normal statutory construction as practiced by real attorneys and judges doing law on a daily basis.

But the really odd part about this is why you are not taking the easy road to destroying my thesis. All you need to come up with is a single case, from any US jurisdiction of your choice, just one case that shows a state officer being charged with an ethics violation that was not discovered until after his or her term expired, just one case where the relevant statute of limitation didn’t start ticking until after the officer had left office. Just one. How hard can that be? But you not only won't do it, you rail at me for offering you this easy way to beat me. Why? It makes no sense, unless you already know there is no such case, and you just don’t want me to keep going there.

So I can’t tell who you are now. To get through law school, you have to take exams where the principle skill is issue spotting. If you’ve made it through three years of issue spotting you absolutely have to know that your novel hypothesis of “infinite liability” is the key issue, yet you dance around it like the proverbial elephant in the room, hoping no one notices you are not addressing it. Your answer so far, if it’s on an exam, gets an F for totally ignoring the main issue.

Furthermore, once you’ve actually studied any amount of statutory law, you must know that any statutory interpretation that results in some untenable, even insane policy, such as the one you suggest, and for which there isn't even any precedent, is never going to pass the laugh test, at least not without a serious and likely successful challenge as to its validity, on constitutional grounds at a minimum and possibly others. Your answer so far, if it’s on an exam, gets an F for failure to explore critical counterarguments to your position.

I honestly don’t know how you got through law school.